Claire Parry’s killer found NOT GUILTY of Murder.

Who was it that talked about women and their 'egg shell skulls'?

Jane Fae, extreme porn advocate (as in the sort of porn where women are portrayed as seriously injured and killed by men in pursuit of the male orgasm), now re-invented as "harmless knitting granny" and trans-activist. Whenever I see Fae, I think Fae would have been in the front row as the tumbrils arrived, with a certain unhealthy interest in being spattered with the blood of female aristocrats in particular.

Who was it that talked about women and their 'egg shell skulls'? Women are such fragile things, they die so easily. You try to push them out of the car and their necks just magically break! This outcome is pretty unbelievable. Apparently he stabbed himself at the scene and when the police picked him up he said she had stabbed him and he was acting in self defence. That was found to be a lie. So despite the fact he lied the jury then believed everything he said?

Something else that is deeply annoying is this: he went for the loss of control defence.When that defence was reformed, the statute specifically said you couldn't use loss of control as an excuse when the trigger was an affair. This has now been watered down so much, that in this case they could say it wasn't revealing the affair which caused the loss of control but the mere sending of the text message. The law was reformed to protect women, but now it's pointless.

My money's on 5 years, out in 2 and a half.

This makes me so angry. How do you "accidentally" strangle someone whilst trying to get them out of your car?

He murdered her.

He will still get Life 🌺

Absolutely disgusting.

I am too angry to post coherently about this right now.

Unless the law is specifically changed so that strangulation death = automatically murder charge, conviction, sentencing, no mitigating factors, then nothing will change.

I couldn't believe this when I read it. How is strangling somebody not murder.

It does seem prompt - judges usually have to take certain things into account before working out the sentence.

Obviously this is an appalling verdict. But it's like those women who were "accidentally" strangle to death during sex - juries don't seem to understand how much force you have to apply to kill someone by strangling.

he helped her out of the car head first

FFS.

Also, juries don't have to provide their reasoning for their decision. So it could be based on not wanting to convict a police officer, based on liking how he came across in court, based on a misunderstanding of the burden of proof, based on disliking the prosecutor, based on not wanting to be responsible for sending someone to prison...

I wouldn't take it to mean they necessarily believed he accidentally strangled her. They may have formed the view that the prosecution did not meet the legal burden of proof (or may have misunderstood what the reasonable doubt instruction meant") or any of a number of faulty reasons.

I don't know why people think jury trials are a good way of delivering justice in the way people mean here. There is no transparency and no recourse for faulty application of the law because they don't have to publish a judgment like a judge would, who could then be challenged for erring on a point of law.

It's the system and structures that need outrage, attention and change.

I would like to read the sentencing remarks, once released.

Surely there must have been some forensic evidence on how exactly she was killed. It cant just have been on his evidence. Shocking verdict.

He's a police officer! And having done jury service I can see why it is possible for some juries to find in his favour - some are stupid enough to believe a police officer can do no wrong. An awful result.

This is awful. It sends a clear message about how valued women are in society.

I was going to write 'in our society', but it's not 'ours' at all is it? It's theirs, and any status we are given is purely by their gracious indulgence and can be removed at any time.

Juries don't like convicting police officers.

Killings like this happen because of the society we have constructed so it makes sense that our society's institutions and jurors rarely do anything useful in response.

"Innocent until proven guilty" exists purely as a legal fiction meaning the state can't impose punishment on a person.

It doesn't mean the person is considered factually innocent or that anybody else has to treat them as innocent.

That is the only way I can cope with the situation. Legal fictions don't mean anything. The system is not about delivering justice in the sense that you mean it, it's about delivering judgments based on the current set of laws created by people.

None of which makes it ok. All I am saying is that if you expect the criminal justice system to deliver fairness and truth you will always be disappointed and it will eat you up inside.

This is horrifying

I'm baffled by this. How is it possible to strangle someone by accident? This man was a police officer and must have had training on restraint, so should have been more aware than the average person how dangerous it is to compress the neck.

Poor woman.