Claire Parry’s killer found NOT GUILTY of Murder.

It sounds like the judge did as good a job as is allowed by law.

And the comments clearly indicate that the judge is of the same opinion we are.

At least he's getting some time. Depressing that the bar is so low.

This is disgusting, but entirely predictable. That poor woman. No wonder male violence is such an epidemic tbh, they seem to get away with it most of the time, even when it results in actual death.

Pelagi if you read the judges comments, is because taking it as a 'trigger' means he can say he believed the man meant to cause her serious harm.

His only other option was to accept it was an accident, given the juror verdict. Which is less bad.

If you read his comments (link and quote upthread) it's clear the judge considers this man a liar, who meant to kill, and then walked away.

I'm quite happy with what the judge said. Under the circs I think he was as damning as he could be.

Looks from that report as though the judge could have made the starting sentence 20 years and then reduced from there. I wonder why he didn’t?

Probably because he pleaded guilty to manslaughter. It’s tempting to give him the harshest sentence possible but the wanker would just appeal it.

So awful. The idea that what Claire Parry did was even close to meeting the “trigger” requirement is horrific.

Puts a new complexion on all those threads on here in Relationships where people are agonising about whether to tell their friend/sister/colleague that her husband is having an affair. Easy answer now - “don’t do it love, means he’d be allowed to kill you”. (Sorry, that’s flippant, but really this whole scenario makes me so depressed about the status of women in our society).

Looks from that report as though the judge could have made the starting sentence 20 years and then reduced from there. I wonder why he didn’t?

Useful local report on the rationale behind the verdict and sentencing here - www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/18829124.judge-passed-manslaughter-sentence-timothy-brehmer/?Ref=twt

Yeah exactly. He seemed to be very much in control when he decided to try to pin the blame on her initially. It’s sickening that he will be out so soon. He has to do at least two thirds of his sentence I believe but that’s still only 6 and a half years. It’s not true justice. At least his copper career will be ruined but that’s little consolation. I really don’t understand how they could find him not guilty. He’s a massive liar and tried to downplay all of it by labelling it a ‘kerfuffle’ when it was a very violent and sustained attack on someone who had no chance to defend herself against this brute. It’s disgusting how men are able to time and time again claim that they didn’t realise their violent actions had consequences or try to blame the victims. If you put your hands around another persons throat (which by the way I have NEVER done or even contemplated, not matter how enraged I have been) you must be 100% accountable for what happens. There will have been a window of time in which he would have realised that she was choking and in which he could have let her go but he didn’t. It’s a virtual certainty that sustained pressure on the neck will cause GBH or death, which is the mens rea for murder. You don’t have to plan it or even intend to kill to be guilty of murder. I really don’t get it but this is just one in a long line of sick results where juries buy ludicrous sob stories from men and disregard the female victims.

What particularly pisses me off, is that as a copper, he will be fairly swiftly moved to a category D prison, with all the other scummy fuckers that are too hated to be safe in a proper prison. He will have an easy prison life and get out in a couple of years, ready to start again, before Clare's children are even adults.

A friend did 5 years under joint enterprise for gbh, for something he was not guilty of. This fucker will do very much the same, for the unlawful death of his lover, that everyone is very clear he caused. Our law does not support women, we are disposable.

I simply do not understand how someone who claimed self defence, who hurt himself to 'prove' this, who snapped her fucking neck when trained in safe restraint and who had an obvious motive has been found not guilty of murder.

And said he had tried to kill himself.

He had no top on as he had stabbed himself in the arm with a penknife and initially said she had stabbed him and he acted in self defence. Then he changed his mind.

They had to specifically remove adultery from the list of triggering thing to make people lose control (or as it was called, ‘provocation’) because so many men were using it to justify killing their wives with the excuse that they had found out they’d cheated (or thought they’d cheated). You’re totally right that it’s skewed towards men who experience a sudden rage and can’t control themselves. I’ve never understood why women are labelled emotional and irrational. Men are the ones who are more likely to get so angry they can’t control their actions. That sort of thing is the height of being emotional.

I really don’t get the above comment about not comparing it to domestic or sexual abuse. And is your DD a police officer who was called to the scene or something? What relevance is it that she was there shortly afterwards? This guy had a reputation for preying on vulnerable women and for having a temper. His wife worked for the same force. I refuse to believe that they had a happy marriage where she was oblivious to his behaviour. And in any event, attacking an strangling your lover is the very definition of domestic abuse so yeah he was a domestic abuser. Oh and people don’t go from absolutely nothing to murdering someone. He will have form - believe me. Plus I can’t understand why the text was so triggering. He had been cheating under his wife’s nose with some of her work colleagues for many years. There will have been other near-misses (if she didn’t already know) and someone as smarmy as him could surely have explained away the text anyway. It’s total bullshit.

Dark humour if you’re sensitive.

newsthump.com/2020/10/28/careless-woman-accidentally-beaten-to-death-by-unlucky-man/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

Can anyone tell me why he seemed to have no clothes on in the ambulance? Would he have been forced to remove them as evidence before being arrested?
I am sickened by this verdict, someone's life snuffed out because she had the temerity to tell on him and his punishment 10 years in prison. Disgraceful. He knew what he was doing. He silenced her. That was his intent.

And I do think there is structural sexism/misogyny here because this whole “loss of control” defence is so much less likely to apply to women, simply because they so rarely have the strength to kill someone in a fit of rage, however angry they are.

Of course, it might be that the jury actually believed the story about it being part of a fight and all accidental, or at least thought the prosecution hadn’t made a good enough case that it wasn’t, but the judge was having none of it, knew it was deliberate, and knew that a “loss of control” acquittal would allow a longer sentence than an “accidental” acquittal.

Whatever, the decision seems very wrong.

Also abusers are cowards!
The only thing my abuser regretted was being 'found out' outside our marriage, that was when I reached my enough is enough and shared what was going on. What goes on behind closed doors is a secret and he will never forgive me for spilling the beans.
We really need to talk about it more as even some women just don't get it.

My DD was there very soon after as the police wanted to see the pubs CCTV. He was a coward who lost control when Mrs Parry contacted his wife. This is not about domestic or sexual abuse. Please don't compare them

Really? He appears to be controlling and abusive to me. We don't know what his wife went through behind closed doors but given he is a controlling liar who has a 'temper' I doubt it was free from domestic abuse and violence.

My DD was there very soon after as the police wanted to see the pubs CCTV. He was a coward who lost control when Mrs Parry contacted his wife. This is not about domestic or sexual abuse. Please don't compare them.

Well I’m pleased that the judge stuck up for Claire after the spineless jury failed to convict. I think that if we are to continue with jury trials, they need to give clear reasons for their decisions. The system at the moment is too open for abuse. Juries could be tossing a coin for all we know and yet we brag about British justice. Might help address our appalling rape conviction rate too. I remember watching a highly inappropriate reality TV show a long time ago where celebrities acted as jurors and I remember Patsy Palmer or someone on it explaining that loads of women lie about rape to get attention. Lots of people hold very problematic views and we entrust them with a lot as jury members. Why shouldn’t they have to explain themselves?

Pretty clear to me what the judge thinks happened.

I'm pleased at his comments if not at the verdict.

'Mr Justice Jacobs told Brehmer he was sentencing him "on the basis you lost your self-control following the sending of the text message to your wife where the affair was revealed, rather than on the basis that you had no intention to kill or cause really serious harm".

"I am sure that you did deliberately take Claire Parry by the neck applying significant force with your forearm or the crook of your elbow for a period of time while she struggled against you, thereby causing...severe neck injuries," the judge added.

"The evidence from the pathologist was that those injuries which she described as 'severe' on a scale of mild, moderate or severe resulted from the application of significant force to the neck for a period of a minimum 10 to 30 seconds and possibly longer.

"She said it was difficult to envisage a situation where a struggle in the car imparted the necessary degree of force or could explain the extent and severity of the neck injuries."

Brehmer told the trial he had left the car without realising Mrs Parry was "poorly".

However, the judge said as a trained police officer "it must have been obvious" that Mrs Parry was not breathing.

"Yet you did nothing to try to help Claire Parry," Mr Justice Jacobs added. "You did not ask her how she was. That was because you knew how she was.

"You could not possibly have thought, as you said in your police interview, that she was simply taking a breath.

"You must have known that her body had gone limp after your assault on her.

"Before you walked to the car park entrance you must have seen how she was - hanging half out of the car."'

If you read the BBC article I linked, the judges comments essentially say he believes the man is a total liar and murdered her.

I know some of you don't like Secret Barrister, but this might explain the Judge's comments on loss of control (although I don't think it will give anyone more faith in the law):

twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1321501603254411264

Basically, we don't know whether the jury decided that manslaughter was the appropriate verdict because of loss of control, but if the judge sentences on the basis of loss of control the sentence can be higher.

That might explain the judges rather odd comments about loss of control being justified?

how many men have been 'accidently' killed by women?