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:
Datun · 21/07/2017 13:51

If he strangled her to death, there must be a point at which she would be thrashing about in horror and objection, yet he continued.

Or. She was already unconscious through intoxication and he continued whilst realising he would have no chance of knowing if she had died.

Either way, he kept going. I don't see how it can't be murder.

adifferentnameforthis

I'm not familiar with the law, but I can't help thinking it would be very useful for some kind of tariff to be attached to these cases. So the viewing of violent pornography being an aggravating factor and get taken into account by being allowed to extend the sentence on that basis.

It would at least send a message about the insidious and constant degradation of women and girls involved in this sort of crime. It would be a very effective public dot joining exercise.

BertieBotts · 21/07/2017 13:50

newt I often find that with DM articles about murders or disasters, makes you wonder too where they get the info from :(

BertieBotts · 21/07/2017 13:45

I thought the law was such that it's not actually legally possible to consent to risky sex practices like severe (potential injury causing) bdsm and erotic asphyxiation because of this very issue. It's confusing why rules don't seem to apply.

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 13:39

Not at all Rufus that sums up my rage with it all as well.

OP posts:
Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 21/07/2017 13:33

Similar happeened when sentencing the murderer and rapist of an 80+ year old women...who apparently was in to sex games with relative strangers

Its not fair

I know that my comment is childish and nowhere near as erudite as most of the posters on this board

But its not fair

darceybussell · 21/07/2017 13:20

As I understand it you don't need to have intent to kill to be convicted of murder, you only need to intend to cause grievous bodily harm. That rule is in place to prevent scenarios where people intend to seriously hurt someone and then by their dumb luck the person ends up dying. It is thought that if you intend to seriously injure someone you should reasonably be able to foresee that their death might be a consequence.

I'd have thought this rule probably does apply in this case, but the jury may not have fully understood that.

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 12:24

I believe the starting threshold for sentencing is higher if someone is convicted of murder and the motive was sexual. However, there are cases in which the motive was sexual but this doesn't happen due to evidence not being allowed to be presented at court. Joanna Yeates for example; the judge didn't permit the prosecution to admit evidence of the man accused (and fortunately subsequently convicted) of murdering her's obsession with similar violent pornography to the man in this case, despite its striking similarities to what he did. On that basis I think he wasn't convicted of such a murder so received a lower minimum tariff even though the judge said he suspected a sexual motive in the murder.

OP posts:
newtlover · 21/07/2017 12:03

is it just me or is the level of detail in the DM article salacious?
I really recoiled from reading it it seemed like a script. Like the kind of thing the defendant would have enjoyed.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 21/07/2017 12:02

Yes, I suppose so.

Maybe 'murder with additional intent to produce sexual pleasure' should be a separate crime.

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 12:00

Not necessarily. There are cases where men have murdered women/girls for the sexual thrill of murdering them without the intention of rape.

OP posts:
YetAnotherSpartacus · 21/07/2017 11:50

But if he had an erection and was prepared to use it it was sexual... I guess the line in the sand was drawn in favour of the man (as usual) but I'd say that getting into bed, kissing and strangling was a prelude to intended sex ... I mean I can't imagine why else he'd be doing what he did unless he intended to use her body for the purposes of his orgasm?

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 11:44

As far as I can tell there isn't any evidence of sexual activity (at least I've not seen it mentioned). He claims she started kissing him (only his word and she was extremely intoxicated) after he'd put her to bed and decided to climb in next to her, he undressed her then climbed on top of her and began to strangle her seems to be the order of events.

OP posts:
Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 11:43

That's what I've been thinking since reading about this case. Hence why I'm so concerned at the attitudes of the jury (and juries generally), the word of a man overriding scientific evidence. I don't see how you could be strangling someone to death and not be aware of what you're doing given that - but the jury believed him. As I said, what a shame women don't get believed by juries when actually victims yet a man with every motivation to create his own version of events is having taken the life of a girl.

OP posts:
YetAnotherSpartacus · 21/07/2017 11:42

Why wasn't he charged with rape and murder?

MrsGWay · 21/07/2017 11:40

OK so if he knowingly applied pressure for long enough then he must have known it would kill her. Then that is murder.

Also when the carbon dioxide levels get too high in the lungs a body automatically fights for air. In this case that must've happened. So in this case I do believe that he should've known that what he was doing is deadly. So it would be murder.

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 11:34

“You say that she started kissing you, to which you responded, kissing her. But you then sat astride her on her stomach. You are a tall man – some six foot two inches – and weighing 13 to 14 stone. Hannah was only five foot three inches and weighed less than eight-and-a-half stone.

“Without any prior permission, you began to strangle her with your left hand; she did not tell her to stop. You say that you told her that you would stop if she wanted you to and she said “OK”.

“You then carried on, but now placing your right and over her throat as well as your left and increasing the pressure to what you described as 4 or 5 out of ten. As Dr Biggs, the prosecution pathologist stated, this must have been on any view much more severe than gentle pressure."

"And she said 'you enjoyed the domination', something which he had seen on a porn DVD previously and had also tried with at least one previous girlfriend.

“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."

Speaking after Morton’s sentencing Detective Inspector Justine Wilson, of Nottinghamshire Police, said: "Hannah had put her trust into this man, he took advantage of that trust.

"He showed no remorse whatsoever. I can only describe him as a cold and calculated individual.

OP posts:
Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 11:30

He was charged with murder but convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter. He'd done it with one previous partner and regularly viewed pornography depicting it. His word was taken by the jury but to me strangling a 16 year old girl you've plied with alcohol and created a situation in which you're able to guide her to your bedroom and undress her, whilst she's incredibly intoxicated, then decide to strangle her is rather sinister to say the least. The judge called his actions "chilling", the police said he showed "no remorse". He is clearly a danger to women and girls.

OP posts:
MrsGWay · 21/07/2017 11:22

Murder does not need to be premeditated! If I in a fit of rage picked a knife up and stuck it in someone's temple that would be murder. Even if I did it without any planning because a knife to the temple is almost guaranteed to kill.

The only reason why this might be considered manslaughter is that the jury decided that he thought he knew what he was doing. I mean he thought he could strangle without actually killing her as he had done this with previous partners.

This does not take way from the problem of porn, coercion and misogyny that society has. Just in this case I can see why a manslaughter charge was brought.

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 11:11

It is horrendous adifferentnameforthis. After going through so much anyway (and continuing to after the trial) so many women and girls are then faced with juries with attitudes as you experienced.

OP posts:
Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 11:08

Tfoot75 I can't see how the comments don't apply. What he claimed occurred was his defence against the murder charge - the consensual acts and so forth. Yet he was taken on his word despite the fact he climbed on top of a 16 year old girl either unconscious or so intoxicated she wasn't aware of what was going on, whilst he himself was relatively sober, strangled her until she died, waited for 20 minutes (I expect the prosecution said getting his story/excuses straight in his mind, which I'd have agreed with them on) then finally called an ambulance. I don't believe there was any evidence of sexual activity. The only facts which can't be disputed are she was hugely intoxicated, he undressed her and he strangled her. 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.

OP posts:
adifferentnameforthis · 21/07/2017 11:01

Yes it's awful. I was quite naive before I went on it. I truly believed public view had changed from 50 300 years ago. Still at least now I can support my clients in a more educated fashion with some idea of what a jury actually thinks Hmm

Tfoot75 · 21/07/2017 10:59

Having read the article this was a murder trial not a rape trial so a lot of the above comments simply don't apply? To have been convicted of murder there had to be premeditated intent to kill so it sounds as if the jury came to the correct conclusion on the information in the article, as he intended to rape her but not murder. The definition of manslaughter is an illegal act (such as gbh or rape) which unintentionally led to the victim dying so fairly clear cut manslaughter. I suppose it just seems worse because it was rape rather than gbh or dangerous driving that lead to the girl dying - however that doesn't make it murder. Question is whether he should also have been tried for rape in addition to this sentence.

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 10:51

Great post Baggy. One thing I should have made clearer is Hannah Pearson was 16 but I concur entirely with what you've said. Even if kissing took place (which we only have his word for anyway) it's not consent to anything, let alone when in such a state.

As you also say pornography is extremely damaging and this isn't the first case where a woman or girl has been killed by a man who regularly views it and all the violence against women it depicts.

adifferentnameforthis that's extremely worrying though not surprising at all regarding the jury you were on. It's horrendous that these stereotypes and rape myths abound and the knock on effect this has on juries. With regards to rape conviction rates I've heard it said that a key obstacle now is the attitudes held by juries; acquittals in some cases stunning prosecution counsel (and sometimes defences as well). How enraging that even having gone through the attack, having to report it and all that goes with it, bringing it all to trial, a victim can see it all fall apart as the jury buys into rape myths.

OP posts:
adifferentnameforthis · 21/07/2017 10:41

There is no training or education given to a jury on a rape trail and the barristers play on ever 'stereotype' they can to fight their case. I was on a rape jury - 95% of the jury helg horrible stereotypes which I (as a lay jury member but by chance also a therapist for sexual abuse survivors) spent 2 weeks passionately fighting against. I dread to think the views held without me (and a male jury member who also helped educate them with me)

DJBaggySmalls · 21/07/2017 10:30

  1. Children cannot consent. so its irrelevant that he believes she initiated (sex/him killing her by strangulation) because she kissed him, she could not consent. Kissing is not initiation of sex, or consent.

  2. This is not an isolated incident or a one off. There is a recent and more horrific case involving 2 children.

  3. Women are put under pressure to commit certain acts or change the way they look or groom by men who watch porn. Its not rare or isolated.
    Labiaplasty was the logical next step from waxing.

  4. Porn is becoming increasingly violent, BDSM is more acceptable. Porn search terms demonstrate that men want the youngest girls they can legally watch or procure.
    Its become so normalised that we dont turn a hair at sex robots with a rape setting, and are only slightly concerned over sex robots that look like children. the belief is that acting out rape or pedophilia is ok if its only a doll, tha tit might help prevent attacks.
    This is despite the fact that pedophiles are not encouraged to act out. It is not considered prevention treatment to let them keep a stash of images of child abuse.

  5. Men state they feel pressured into trying out acts by peer pressure.
    A quarter of women say they think its normal to be coerced or pressurized.

The internet has made porn easy to make, distribute and access; and it is changing what our society believes is normal and acceptable.