Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Another woman killed by her ex violent shit of a partner.

424 replies

sundayrose10 · 07/06/2011 01:56

It's just so tragic and I feel so angry at another senseless death on a woman by a scum. It's well known leaving an abusive partner is the most dangerous time...why don't the police do more?

It is too sad for words. How can the surviving child even begin to get through something like that?

From the daily fail. I can't link so copied and pasted.

100 threats to kill: Mother handed police texts days before ex-partner gunned down her and their little girl

Shotgun shoved in child's mouth just moments before murders
Watchdog probes claims police knew of volatile situation between parents
A terrified mother handed police 100 menacing text messages from her crazed ex-partner days before he shot her and their two-year-old dead.
Chrissie Chambers, 38, made a formal statement to officers last week about David Oakes?s repeated threats to kill her during a bitter row over access to their daughter.
Nothing was done and yesterday morning Oakes killed Miss Chambers and young Shania in their home.

The killer also shoved his shotgun into the mouth of Shania?s half sister, Chelsea, who saved her life by fleeing through a window and on to the kitchen roof.
Her mother had urged the ten-year-old to ?run, run, save yourself while you can?.
Last night an inquiry was launched by the Independent Police Complaints Commission after it emerged that officers had been called to the house a number of times over the past two years,
It was also claimed that Oakes was subjected to a non-molestation order that prevented him from coming within 100 yards of her.
Stuart Flitt, 26, who is a half brother to Chelsea, said police had been given warning after warning.
?The last time she made a statement was on Thursday ? she was making statements to the police all week,? he said.
?She gave police over 100 text messages but they never took her seriously.
?These texts threatened to kill her ? I had been staying round there for her own safety.?
A close friend of the family said: ?The police said to her ?We cannot do anything until something happens to you?. She was scared ? she sobbed her heart out to me on Friday. This should not have happened.
?The police were in the wrong and they knew about this weeks ago.?

Unemployed Oakes, 50, was under police guard in hospital last night with non life-threatening injuries after turning the gun on himself at the end of a two-hour stand-off at the semi-detached house in Braintree, Essex.
Chelsea?s father, Ian Flitt, said he was woken in the early hours of yesterday morning by Chelsea who was banging on his door.
The 50-year-old said: ?She started screaming ?He is there at the house with a gun? and ?He has put it into Chrissie?s mouth?.?
Oakes killed his former partner before turning the gun on Shania. Chelsea climbed through the window on to the kitchen roof, before dropping ten feet to the ground below and running half a mile barefoot in her nightgown to her father?s house. ?If he was prepared to shoot his own daughter, he would have shot her,? he said.
Oakes, who has been described as an ?abusive, jealous woman hater?, embarked on his killing spree hours before a court appearance over the custody of Shania.
He and Miss Chambers had been together for six years before they split seven weeks ago.
She had had a ten-year relationship with Mr Flitt and they had three children, Levi 16, Guy, 11, and Chelsea, who lived with her and Shania.

Assistant Chief Constable Gary Beautridge of Essex Police said: ?We have had two years of contact between him [Oakes] and the family and as part of the investigation there will be a full and fundamental review of the circumstances of this contact.?
Amid dramatic scenes outside her house yesterday, a distraught man shouted at officers: ?You knew this was going to happen, you could have stopped it.?

Donna Garrod, 20, said Oakes, who is understood to have been a drug dealer, had been violent toward Miss Chambers for years.
?One time he kidnapped Shania and police had to escort Christine to his caravan to get her back,? she said. ?I have seen her with bruises, a black eye and a broken nose.
?The police knew what was going on. I was there most times when the police came round. She had been calling them for two weeks.?
Karran Tomlinson, 35, said she had lived next to Miss Chambers for four years and had heard many violent rows during that time ? including threats from Oakes to kill Shania.
She said: ?Dave was a nasty piece of work. He had been beating her up for years. I think she was just too scared to leave him.
?She finally found the courage to leave him seven weeks ago and now this has happened.?
Police managed to enter the house at around 5.45am, and arrested Oakes who was taken to Broomfield Hospital, in Chelmsford. Last night a life-long friend of Oakes said he had terrorised women for more than 20 years because of his uncontrollable jealously. The woman, who asked not to be named, said: ?As soon as I heard I knew it had to be David.
?He has a vicious temper and is not a man to be crossed.?

OP posts:
SardineQueen · 08/06/2011 12:56

"As a barrister rather than a solicitor of course I do not get to see the clients who do not need actually to attend court for any family law purposes ie those people who resolve all of their issues with their own lawyers"

Most relationships ending don't involve lawyers FGS.

You seem to have a narrow view of life.

dittany · 08/06/2011 12:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Glitterknickaz · 08/06/2011 13:00

A barrister specialising in family law is going to have the same skewed view of a relationship breakdown as an obstetrician does of childbirth.

That it is problematic.

That is because they are specialists in the extreme, a barrister isn't normally involved when everything is dealt with amicably just as an obstetrician isn't involved in a straightforward, normal birth.

dittany · 08/06/2011 13:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SardineQueen · 08/06/2011 13:06

But surely any sane person knows that the vast majority of relationships end without violence or lawyers? I mean it's just bleeding obvious.

If people in the legal profession really believe that this is basically normal and standard (violence at the end of a relationship) then you get this stuff about, oh there's too many to do anything about it, it's normal so let's not punish them that much.

The actual case is that men like this make up a significant minority, something can be done about it (lock them up), women and children deserve to be protected, what they are doing is CRIMINAL.

If the significant minority were taken out of circulation life would be so much nicer and so much safer. Like rapists, men who commit DV are serial offenders, they move from one person to the next ruining lives. When men of this ilk break the law they should be punished with jail sentences. Not left out in the community to terrorise people.

babybarrister · 08/06/2011 13:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dittany · 08/06/2011 13:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SardineQueen · 08/06/2011 13:26

babybarrister I was simply trying to get you to talk about your original post on this thread in which you stated that "there is violence at the end of the majority of relationships" and you used this to excuse the criminal justice system for basically not doing anything.

You now accept that what you said initially was wrong, but now seem to think that most relationships that end involve lawyers?

Why do you expect me to engage with what you are saying when you keep making statements that defy common sense?

You were not "at pains" to explain anything, you have made a variety of ridiculous statements and then bandy unrelated statistics around when someone points out that you are talking nonsense.

babybarrister · 08/06/2011 13:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 08/06/2011 13:29

Maybe "only" 200 deaths take place, but how many hospitalisations? How many women in intensive care? How many with broken bones? How many with bruising? How many children for that matter with injuries? How many attempted murders?

I am guessing A LOT and if you think that the 22,000 (fucking hell) injunctions aren't given for good reason, perhaps you would care to remember that the average women is assaulted over thirty times before she involves herself in the legal system. The men who have injunctions granted against them are BY DEFINITION dangerous.

Maybe they're not all going to kill their partners - whoop de do - for every one that manages it there are likely to be hundreds more who try it but are prevented by police or friends or family of the victim, and thousands more who injure their partners and children.

Saying "where do we start guessing who the killers will be" - well shockingly it's not only a big deal when someone gets killed. You've got a ready made list to guess from, and start by guessing "any one of these people".

SardineQueen · 08/06/2011 13:31

You seem to have a few blind spots:

  • It is not normal for relationships to feature violence, at any stage. Thinking that is the case leads to incorrect conclusions about what can and should be done
  • It is not appropriate for violence at the end of a relationship to be seen as "understandable" by the court system
  • If a person has obtained and injunction then presumably the man has done something wrong? If what he has done is very wrong - then why shouldn't he go to prison? The threshold for treating these men like the criminals they are is too high
  • Is it really not a problem is a person isn't killed? The courts and police should consider it a problem if a person is on the receiving end of any criminal harrassment, abuse etc. It's shouldn't just be serious injury or death that make people take notice
  • It is ludicrous to say that people who are dangerous should not be put in prison as one day they might be released
  • I'm sure there are more
SardineQueen · 08/06/2011 13:33

What E&M said.

Mind boggling.

dittany · 08/06/2011 13:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dittany · 08/06/2011 13:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

millie30 · 08/06/2011 13:44

So is there no middle ground for a violent abuser to be punished before he actually kills his victim? If that attitude is prevalent in the legal system then no wonder so many injunctions aren't worth the paper they are written on.

dittany · 08/06/2011 13:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

workedoutforthebest · 08/06/2011 13:45

.......it's a mans' world......:(

dittany · 08/06/2011 13:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

stripeywoollenhat · 08/06/2011 15:36

surely it's completely irrelevant whether violence is 'out of character' or not? it's still illegal, right? surely this is all very straightforward? violence is illegal, harassment is illegal, threats to kill are illegal - having a relationship or ending a relationship with someone does not create a legal loophole which renders these illegal acts legal, does it?

dittany · 08/06/2011 15:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AyeRobot · 08/06/2011 17:18

Oh my word. I would really hope that babybarrister's views are not representative of the legal profession and the justice system in general, but the outcomes prove otherwise.

I hate the suggestion that context is so important in terms of whether a crime has been committed. No, context is important in terms of sentencing. The law is written down in black and white. All this fucking grey area shit is why men get away with doing harm to women.

BrainlessAndWitless · 08/06/2011 17:53

the thing is, the law ISN'T all written down in black and white ... its is based on common law created through precedents and a judges interpretation of what has gone before. Until a precedent is set in such cases, it will continue to be the same no matter what powers are given to the police....

AyeRobot · 08/06/2011 18:03

Sorry, B&W, I posted rashly. You are right. There are however laws laid down in Acts, like the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for example, are clear about when a crime has been committed and therefore the police and the CPS are able to act in relation to them. That the police do not always gather the correct information and evidence to present to the CPS is a problem.

I am really sorry your ex has done and is doing all of this really shitty stuff to you. Thank you for sharing your story.

acopia · 08/06/2011 18:26

Case law, technically, is still written down in black and white though.

jasper · 08/06/2011 18:28

NO ONE is victim blaming