Andrew Miller appeals their sentence

The comments about Miler & his kink in the last judgment are appalling. The judge in the original case was compassionate & clear about the harm Miller had done, how he behaved and why that poor wee girl got into his car, because “ she thought he was a woman”

The original judge was IMO far less biased and clear sighted in terms of the likely motivations of this convicted paedophile than this new, sexist judge. Just my opinion of course.

By the time of the incident, the appellant was already dressing as a woman as a matter of routine, rather than for any more sinister a reason.

Well isn't THIS judge assuming the opposite? He's assuming that dressing as a woman 'routinely' isn't sinister.

I would state that THIS judge is drawing a potentially erroneous conclusion. Paedophiles plan their crimes for years. He has no way of knowing why AM was dressing 'as a woman'. It might be entirely in order to lure young girls to him - this may very well not have been his first crime. It also shows a huge degree of biased sexism in what 'dressing as a woman' means. I dress in trousers and a t-shirt most days without makeup and sometimes with a very cursory hair brush. In that getup i.e. dressing like me (and hundreds of thousands of other biological women) I seriously doubt AM would get away with anyone reading him as female even from a distance and through a car window.

The way he was dressed was a sexist version of what 'dressing as a woman' means. Not how women actually dress.

Yeah some of that isn't good!

On Wednesday, in a written judgment issued by the court Lord Carloway concluded that the sentence given to Miller was appropriate.

However, he made comments about how Lord Arthurson was wrong to conclude that Miller’s way of dressing at the time of abduction was to persuade the child to enter his car.

In the judgement, Lord Carloway spoke of Miller’s past “fetishes” and his “psychological difficulties with gender.”

He added: “There are.. erroneous, or at least speculative, aspects to the sentencing remarks, which have been founded upon in the appeal.

“First, the judge regarded, as a significantly aggravating factor, the appellant’s female apparel as indicative of a pre- conceived intention to abduct a girl.

“The court cannot agree. By the time of the incident, the appellant was already dressing as a woman as a matter of routine, rather than for any more sinister a reason.

“What the judge does focus on is what he perceived as victim blaming in the appellant’s interviews with the risk assessor.
**
“Given the nature of the questioning, the appellant’s responses did not justify the conclusions which the judge reached in relation to his attitude to the complainer or his crimes.”

Right decision!

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/trans-butcher-who-abducted-abused-32012511?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
This is a longer article. Although the appeal was rejected the judges comments are worrying

Sgt. Major Williams, take it away.

TFFT

He failed 🥳https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scotland-crime-live-andrew-miller-31855442?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Oh that makes sense, thank you

I think he identified himself (to the police etc) as a man, so that's how he is being referred to.
I think he did that for two reasons - one, his reported fear of causing harm to the trans community, and two, in hopes that his case would be reported under his "man" name and he would have a clean name when he got out.

Haven’t rtwt
really interested in the use of his relevant pronouns in both the news articles. What’s going on there?

I think this is the third time but here goes. It was being suggested that the child got in the car because he presented as a woman and I think that is either wrong or the child must have felt a woman was safe which isn't necessarily true.

Can you really not understand that it's simultaneously true that a child may indeed have been told never to get into a car with any stranger, man or woman, but make a an error of judgment and feel safe with someone deliberately presenting as 'motherly'?

Reductions for guilty pleas seem obscene in some circumstances. I remember a case a few years ago, a man abducted a 3 year old girl when her mum left the room to make him a brew.

Judge Stephanie Boyd in the US was being streamed when she refused to accept the negotiated plea deal in a SA of a young child case. She wanted a 20 year sentence (more than the deal's 15yrs). She ended up semi-reprimanded (for what people in the comments that she couldn't see were saying), the defence had her recused, and another judge signed off on the negotiated plea bargain.

A complaint against Judge Boyd filed with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct earlier this year describes a July 6 hearing for a sexual assault defendant.
Defendant Wilberth Villamil, who was scheduled to plead no contest in front of Judge Boyd to a single count of aggravated sexual assault of a child in exchange for 15 years in prison, instead saw his case delayed and then transferred to a different court.
“Is there a reason I should accept this agreement? Why am I accepting this agreement?” Judge Boyd asked as Villamil stood before her on July 6.
Commenters on the stream, which had been watched more than 8,500 times as of Thursday, described the defendant as “sick,” wrote other insults about him and wrote that he deserved longer than 15 years in prison as the plea hearing took place.
“This case is horrible,” said Judge Boyd, as she weighed whether to accept the plea agreement.
The prosecutor assigned to the case said the deal was offered because the family of the victim wanted closure and not to retraumatize the victim.
Judge Boyd, after hearing Villamil describe the sexual assault, said the court would be willing to accept a plea deal of 20 years, not 15.
Villamil’s attorney then said it would not be appropriate to discuss a complete reworking of the plea deal in such a rushed manner and the case was subsequently reset.
The case was then transferred to 227th District Court on Aug. 4. Villamil pleaded no contest on Aug. 24 and was sentenced to the original 15 years in prison prosecutors had offered, court records show.
The formal complaint against Judge Boyd states that she violated several canons of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct with her statements made during the livestream.

https://www.ksat.com/news/ksat-investigates/2023/11/30/judge-boyds-court-recused-from-three-felony-cases-amid-fallout-from-youtube-stream/

Reductions for guilty pleas seem obscene in some circumstances. I remember a case a few years ago, a man abducted a 3 year old girl when her mum left the room to make him a brew. He raped her, several times, then crashed the car they were both in attempting to flee the police. I remember her father saying he, literally, had her blood on his hands when he was arrested why should he get any credit for pleading guilty. But he did.

Iirc the police were criticised because they didn't initially take it seriously. The child's ordeal was worse and longer because of their dawdling.

I don't think they should get a sentence reduced for a guilty plea when the evidence is so highly stacked against them that they'd never have got off. The fact he denied as much as possible, for as long as possible (he was just being a mother to her, apparently until there was too much evidence).

That is different than someone who crumbles and tells all straight away, even when they might have been able to convince a jury they were innocent.

Good use of perverted and fetishistic.

Yes, it's a very disturbing read and very upsetting. I understand wanting to protect the victim's privacy, however.

If this man's sentence is shortened it will be an outrage.

https://judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/sentences-and-opinions/2023/10/18/hma-v-andrew-miller

This is a disturbing read.

When he was caught red-handed he denied any sexual assault took place in a 6 hour interview. He only admitted to sleeping in her bed and feeling motherly towards her. He also told her that he would be keeping her for at least a week.

Throw away the bloody key!

I think this is the third time but here goes. It was being suggested that the child got in the car because he presented as a woman and I think that is either wrong or the child must have felt a woman was safe which isn't necessarily true.

I hope all parents tell their children that, sensible or not.

So my answer to this is that I am sure the vast majority of sensible parents tell their children never ever to get into a car with ANYONE they don’t know, whether male or female.

I don’t see why you felt the need to remind us of how to advise our children as they venture out into the world. We all know what to do. I am sure you weren’t trying to insinuate that the girl shouldn’t have got into his car.

Yes and apparently the fact he was presenting as a woman was a feature.

Some aided by women but even without that do you think it is all right to ignore the 3% or do we do our best to protect them as well? Personally I'd opt for protecting them all.

I appreciate what you say as per ⬆️ re West and Hindley but in this particular case, the child was abducted and sexually abused by a MAN.