This Judge is unbelievable. The case is horrific but he also blames her? Murder of Carmen Miron Buchacra

[vivizone]

I am so angry. How is this possible?

7 years for killing your partner with a 7 week baby because as Judge said:

'I accept what caused you to lose self control was the cumulative effect of emotional abuse by Gaby over a significant period.

Because they had been arguing by text all day. So clearly she abused him.

What planet are these Judges from?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297700/Financial-advisor-strangled-PHD-student-girlfriend-death-brutal-assault-recorded-friends-voicemail-jailed-seven-years.html

[flippinada]

People said the same about the original conviction for Meredith Kercher's murder, me included. I was wrong.

Juries are made up of ordinary people who are subjective to the same prejudices and beliefs we all are. Of course they will hear evidence that we don't, but there's no disputing the facts of her death.

[edam]

Dreaming, was the newspaper reporting the prosecution case because that day's proceedings were the prosecution presenting their evidence, by any chance?

Newspapers have to continue to report trials - they can't just report one day's evidence. (They don't have to report every day, but can't just choose one at random, give that day's evidence and then no more until the verdict/sentencing.)

[flippinada]

Subject, not subjective.

[LandofTute]

I agree with DreamingOf and zwischenzug

[edam]

'the court heard that it took 75 minutes for Keene to call police' - from the BBC.

The claims of abuse from her towards him are defence allegations - of course the defence is going to make up shit about her, that's the only chance the murderer has to get a lighter sentence. 'Adam Vaitilingam QC, defending, told the court there was psychological bullying in their relationship.'

Even the defence, going all out to get their client off, was only able to claim 'a period of low-level emotional abuse' i.e. made-up shit. 'This culminated in the threat to take away a child'. That's the outrageous defence slur that the uppity woman dared to threaten to leave a man who goes out on an all day drinking binge ignoring his partner and newborn baby.

The idea that the savage, brutal murderer was the victim here is a ridiculous, disgusting slur on a dead woman who is no longer here to defend herself, or care for her poor baby.

[DreamingOfTheMaldives]

Edam, they were reporting that day's events, as I believe I said in my post. It was the evidence of a prosecution witness which was reported. He gave both evidence in chief and was cross examined by the defence that day. The newspaper article completely excluded responses from the witness which assisted the defence case and only included those which assisted the prosecution case.

It was done for one reason only, to get the general public wound up about the defendant being a cold blooded murderer - because it makes far better 'news' than actually reporting the actual facts of a case.

[flippinada]

Of course it is edam

Have looked for transcripts but can't find them, don't know if they are published online though; maybe someone can clarify?

[edam]

Oh, these pathetic exaggerated claims that somehow he's the victim:

From an early BBC story: 'Bristol Crown Court was told there had been constant arguments and Miss Miron-Buchacra had believed her fiancé wanted to take her newborn baby away from her.'

So the claims that she's a nasty uppity woman whose killing isn't important because SHE wanted to leave him are twisting the truth 180 degrees.

'Miss Miron-Buchacra had allegedly tried to stop her fiance, of Bennett Street, from going out with friends and work mates and had accused him of not spending enough time with his family.' - that's the defence claim in an attempt to get their client off, not the objective truth. And even if she wanted him to spend a few minutes here and there with their newborn baby, so what? That's entirely normal and reasonable.

The claims that somehow he was the victim of bullying and abuse are just defence lies, based on nothing more than the murder's say-so. Yet people are incredibly keen to believe a murderer who went out drinking all day rather than support his partner and newborn, came home and strangled the mother of his newborn to death in a sustained attack in front of their baby, ignoring her desperate pleas and stopping to change weapons. Good grief.


From the BBC: 'The court also heard from Miss Miron-Buchacra's aunt, Maria Buchacra-Agiss, who told the jury - in a video link to California - that her niece had called her crying and hysterical.

Ms Buchacra-Agiss said: "She was telling me that Paul Keene said to her he was going to take the baby away from her.

"She told me that two weeks before she found out that she was pregnant that Paul had hit her.

"She said he 'raised his hand', but that means for us that he hit her."'

[BoneyBackJefferson]

so much mis-information on this thread, jumping to conclusions and twisting the truth from all sides.

[flippinada]

Please point out the misinformation.

Is it the bit where he battered the door down to get to her, punched her in the face and then strangled her - in front of her eleven week old daughter - pausing to choose a more effective tool to complete the action?

Is it the bit where she is recorded crying and pleading for her life while sounds of choking were heard?

[BoneyBackJefferson]

The mis-information is reffering to only a part of the news story

Do you know what this couples relationship was like?
Do you actually know if she wasn't abusive?

As has been stated by some posters on this thread you do not have the full information

[flippinada]

It's certainly true that I don't have all the details of the trial but then neither does anyone else posting on here.

However, the details of her murder, which I described above, are a statement of fact. The murder was recorded as a message on his friends mobile phone.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

It's shocking. I don't buy the 'low level psychological abuse' shit brought up by his defence one bit, considering she was the one that suffered a violent death.

But even if she had been emotionally abusive, she didn't deserved that. There is no excuse for such a sustained attack. This was no momentary loss of control - he tried to strangle her with a dressing gown cord, and when that didn't work he got an electrical cord. He talked about killing her while he was punching her.

That's pre-meditated murder in my book.

[edam]

Do you actually know she was, Boney? No, you don't. All you have are the smears made by desperate defence counsel. It is for the person making an assertion to produce proof, not for the person questioning it. I'm sure you understand that basic rule of argument and logic, don't you?

[flippinada]

Even accepting the "low level emotional abuse" defence (which I don't), his actions are completely out of proportion and despicable.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

and we are back to mis-information,

the jury and the judge know all of the facts and have decided on manslaughter.

Yet they have been described on here as a bunch of misogynists.

[flippinada]

Please point out the misinformation, Boney. As this read is apparently riddled with it, that shouldn't be too hard.

[flippinada]

Thread, not read.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

"All you have are the smears made by desperate defence counsel"

I don't know what happened.
I don't know what led up to what happened (minutes, hours, days, weeks, months).

I don't know what happened in the Kercher case.
Or the Mccann case.
Or the Joanne Yeates case.

Nor do I intend to speculate.
Why?
Because I don't have the full information.

[NorthernLurker]

This poor woman has not had justice.
He changed weapon! He is recorded threatening her. Apparently all that is justified by her saying she would take the baby away - from an abusive, drunken twat - what a bitch!

If I were that baby's family I would go to the ends of the earth before I let that man see that child ever again.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

"riddled" is your word not mine

Stating that he murdered her is mis-information.
Quoting only the parts of the story that you believe does not make it the only evidence.

Repeating them over and over does not make them the truth.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

I've not read any misinformation on here. I think the misinformation was heard in the trial actually - propagated by the defence counsel, about a woman who is no longer here to defend herself.

That man was in no danger - after an all day drinking session he battered down her front door, violently attacked and murdered her. It was all recorded on a voicemail - his vile threats and violence against her. Then he has the gall to make out he was the victim - and the jury buys it. Makes me sick.

[flippinada]

Would that be the evidence which was presented at the murder trial about how she died?

That's my opinion, it's established fact. It was recorded on his friends mobile phone.

Are you saying that message was made up, because if so, I'm really confused.

[flippinada]

Sorry that's "not" my opinion.

[JustGiveMeFiveMinutes]

Please note that defence counsel don't make up stories. They have to put forward lines of defence as instructed by their clients. If they fail to do so they would be severely critisised, in serious breach of their code of conduct and at risk of being disbarred.

They do not spend their time thinking of lies to put to witnesses.