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:
Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 10:25

I find it absolutely enraging that someone obsessed with violent pornography, who plied a 16 year old girl with alcohol, guided her to his bedroom, climbed on top of her when she was either unconscious or so intoxicated she wasn't aware of what was going on (whilst he was relatively sober and well aware of this), strangled her to the extent he killed her, waited 20 minutes before calling an ambulance ("chilling" according to the judge), showed no remorse in police interviews can then be taken completely at his word by a jury and will probably only spend 6 years in prison.

OP posts:
Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 10:22

He definitively intended to harm this child, and took steps to ensure her compliance. But that does not mean he set out to murder someone.

What harm did he intend to do?

The only "doubt" in this case is his own testimony. The testimony of someone who has killed someone and has a clear vested interest in his version being believed. Someone who has an obsession with pornography depicting exactly the same kind of violence against women he used on a girl so intoxicated (after he'd kept giving her alcohol) she couldn't have understood what was going on - he certainly could being an adult, 8 years older and not drunk.

"'intoxicated and in no position to object, trapped underneath you whilst you strangled her.' The court heard Hannah, who had battled and beaten anorexia a year earlier, may have even been unconscious through drink when Morton - who was six stones heavier than her - struck.

OP posts:
isupposeitsverynice · 21/07/2017 10:14

Yes, the default assumption is that women are lying and men are truthful. Combined, I think, with a underlying belief that sex crimes aren't really that bad, and certainly not bad enough to warrant "ruining" a man's life over. It is utterly depressing, and I don't know what can be done to combat it.

DeleteOrDecay · 21/07/2017 10:14

I am increasingly thinking that juries have no place in cases that involve sex crimes. Time and time again they demonstrate they don't understand or worse yet simply don't care about the fate of girls and women.

I agree or at the very least they should have some sort of training before cases involving sex crimes. (Not sure if they do already?)

This is absolutely disgusting, and people say porn is harmlessAngry

TrojanWhore · 21/07/2017 10:09

I would never support the abolition of jury trials.

He definitively intended to harm this child, and took steps to ensure her compliance. But that does not mean he set out to murder someone.

Now I know intent does not have to be of long duration, but proving that he ever had an intent to kill (as opposed to an intent to rape a child violently which seems to be beyond doubt). As he had done this before with an adult, then he could reasonably have believed it would be a non-fatal encounter.

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 10:08

I've thought that for a little while as well isuppose. I think it's because misogyny is so pernicious; victims doubted at every turn by juries, men often taken at their word no matter what as well as all the other prejudices and attitudes so many have which will inevitably be found with a significant number of those on juries (interestingly shown by a recent Channel 4 programme "The Trial").

I find it incredibly saddening and enraging how little the lives of girls and women matter.

OP posts:
isupposeitsverynice · 21/07/2017 10:04

I am increasingly thinking that juries have no place in cases that involve sex crimes. Time and time again they demonstrate they don't understand or worse yet simply don't care about the fate of girls and women.

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 10:00

A significant part of my issue is that he persuaded a jury his intention wasn't to kill. That's something which concerns me greatly: a jury took him at his word, that everything he said was the case, despite the fact he had very clear motivation to falsely claim it all. Added to that the facts that he plied her with alcohol, guided her to his bedroom, strangled her, failed to call an ambulance for over 20 minutes after her death then showed "no remorse" to police over days of questioning were disregarded because he said she initiated kissing him and agreed to him applying pressure on her neck (despite it being proven she was in an incredibly intoxicated state so unable to consent to anything anyway). It definitely didn't "have to be manslaughter" or the CPS wouldn't have pursued a charge of murder and I'm hugely concerned at the jury's mindset and what that says.

OP posts:
Silverthorn · 21/07/2017 09:54

You have to wonder about the jury's moral code, really it should be a no brainer. Angry

VikingVolva · 21/07/2017 09:49

As the pornography must have included images of child abuse if he fantasised about doing this to a girl - presumably over 13 as strict liability did not kick in.

Men who watch images of child abuse and then attempt to act it out with girls are not representative of men in general. The awareness that it is wrong is much higher, because of the lengths one has to go to to procure it but it doesn't stop them. It's a fairly specialist psych area to try to unpick the motivations and what led them to sexual interest in children.

It looks as if he tried with an adult previous partner, and escalated to a child.

The manslaugher/murder here is to do with his intention. He persuaded a jury that his intent was not to kill (it was to abuse a child) but as the action led to her death and he did it, it pretty much has to be manslaughter. The sentencing can be the same for those two offences though.