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

So given that we have seen the transcript of her murder and the details of the the murderer's defence why do you think there is some other evidence that we don't know Landoftute? The reason we don't know it is because it doesn't exist. That pitifully lame 'evidence' of her 'abuse' that was given in court is the actual evidence the judge and jury used to reach their decision.

Of course women can be abusive and violent but this poor woman wasn't one of them. 'Some people' don't want to believe that those we trust to hand out justice could be so swayed by their own prejudices in the face of plain evidence.

Were you in court, moonabove? If not, you do not know detailsof the killer's defence, you have simply read a couple of sentences about it in a newspaper article, that is all.

I don't need to moonabove when a simple google search would provide people with the info, if they could be bothered. Far easier though to just suggest that it MUST be murder because it wasn't a sudden loss of control or that it was low level abuse.

Clearly the jury, who had all the facts of the case and had the law on loss of control explained to them, thought he had a valid defence. Thankfully it's their verdict and not that of internet forum posters who don't know all the facts, that actually matters.

Lets not forget that a jury is made up of randomly selected members of the public. I bet many of them would have had an opinion on trials they've previously read about in the news and thought the verdicts were wrong. But when sitting on a jury, they base their decision on the evidence they hear in court, which is what matters.

Were the jury just stupid and those of you on mumsnet far more intelligent not to be swayed by the defendant's case?! No, they were in possession of the full details.

having been in an abusive relationship, the abused one is relieved when the abusive one is out. the abused one does not text the abuser to persuade him to come home. The one who kicks down the door to get in to the house sounds like the aggressor.

If there were more details to explain the sentence, they should be revealed. But even if she were abusive to him he wasn't financially dependent.

All this bullshit trotted out in the name of feminism, 'can't you believe a woman could be abusive?'. Yes, i can believe it, but this man was not financially dependent on her. she had just had a baby.

Jury's often are stupid. They have some question put to them by the judge, some 'direction' he wants them to take. He will lead them to believe that although they may believe he is a killer, although they not believehis defence, that that is not evidence. That all the evidence they've processed adn teh conclusions they've reached, that is not proof, and the only thing anybody can be certain of is that nobody else was there that night, oh, and let me show you againt the nsaty texts she sent him.

So, seriously, lol at jurys being even ALLOWED TO MAKE a decision. they are puppets on a string.

It's still murder though, isn't it?

Even is this woman was an absolute nightmare, threatened to kill him and the baby, made up stories about him and broadcast them... Why kill? Why not go? Call the police and SS and get custody of the baby?

So the jury had all the facts presented (don't forget she wasn't there to brief her lawyer or put her side across), but why can't the reasons for the outcome be explained?

Don't need to Dreaming? Thought not. That would be because a 'simple google search or indeed indepth research would not reveal any 'law' on loss on control because it is too subjective to be quantified into a law. It therefore becomes a matter of judgement which, in this case, has gone completely astray.

Don't you think if the murder victim in this case had been physically violent or had subjected her partner to prolonged mental cruelty that it would have been reported? It would have to have been very serious abuse on her part to explain such a savage murder and yet...no sign of it.

You can't explain it because it can't be explained and perhaps you're not interested in explaining anyway, only justifying what can't be justified. Why you feel the need to do that only you would know.

Not going into the specifics of this case as I didn't follow it and also it doesn't seem as though anyone will change their mind but just in relation to this "It's still murder though, isn't it? " just wanted to say that provocation or diminished capacity (not sure what defence they ran with) is a partial defence to the crime of murder only (for all other crimes it goes to mitigation of sentence) which, if successful, would result in a person being not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter

It's a partial defence in that it could not be used to see a person not guilty of all wrongdoing, it just reduces murder to manslaughter

Really moonabove? No law regarding loss of control? Try section 54 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It was introduced in 2010 and abolished the law on provocation!

Again you mention that it hasn't been reported that the deceased was physically violent so cannot have happened. Perhaps it didn't but so what? The defence in law of loss of control does not require the deceased to have been physically violent!!! For heaven's sake, the jury would have had the law explained to them so that THEY understood it before reaching their decision.

Of course it becomes a matter of judgement, the Jury would have used their judgement when considering the evidence against the law. Do you really think the jury (all 12 of them) though 'oh she was a bit of a nag so she deserved to die, we better find him not guilty of murder?' Really?

Thought not though

It's happened before, dreaming. Nagging has been given as justification for the murder of a wife.

You can argue about loss of control all you like, smashing down a front door to get to your victim, a sustained attack over minutes that involves going to get another weapon is not loss of control.

MayorQuimby, that seems to be happening a lot though. I know you're Irish. You will have heard of the woman who stabbed her partner 60 times and she got manslaughter. Once? ok manslaughter. The next 59 times? And of course, Eamon lillis, hit his wife in the head with a brick til she stopped fighting back and he got manslaughter too. More recently again, there was another woman, it was in the news same week as the first woman who stabbed her partner60 times, she stabbed an xbf who wouldn't be told he was an Xbf 18 times. He had stalked her for months. However she had previously sorted out her disputes with a knife. And that was manslaughter too. So there seems to be a lot of hey let's just call it manslaughter going on. Can you not murder a spouse or an x anymore?!

Don't you think if the murder victim in this case had been physically violent or had subjected her partner to prolonged mental cruelty that it would have been reported?

Newspapers leaving out important information to twist a news story to fit their agenda? Never.

Of course it becomes a matter of judgement, the Jury would have used their judgement when considering the evidence against the law. Do you really think the jury (all 12 of them) though 'oh she was a bit of a nag so she deserved to die, we better find him not guilty of murder?' Really?

I don't know about that - but I really do think that juries can get it very wrong (Vicky Pryce's first trial, anyone??) The majority of juries will follow the judges directions to them - and this judge believed that this woman had emotionally abused this man.

The judge said: "'I accept what caused you to lose self control was the cumulative effect of emotional abuse by Gaby over a significant period.
In particular the threat to take away your daughter that you loved and that you would not be a part of their lives."

Firstly, evidence was heard by the victim's relative that he had 'raised a hand to her' (she clarified this meant actual hitting) early in the relationship - evidence that he was abusive to her, rather that the other way round. Secondly, as Fastidia said above - how can threatening to leave a man, and take your 11wk old baby, be seen as 'cumulative verbal abuse' and mitigation for the horrendous level of violence he inflicted on this woman?

Edam, you can argue that it does not fit the definition of 'loss of control' as you would think of it, but the legal sense of the term is different. It does not specify that a person must only kill in a prescribed way such as by lashing out once, which is what you seem to think it should mean.

" smashing down a front door to get to your victim,"

He didnt smash down the door, why is that repeated time and time again on here? He threatened to, but nowhere does it say that he actually smashed it down.

surely losing control should still be punished though.

wrt Gaby, their dd was only 11 weeks old. How long could the threat have been going on for. NOt that long.

surely losing control should still be punished though.
It has, he is going to prison.

and who said it was only since the baby came along?

As said too many people making assumptions without knowing the full facts other than the little they have read in the paper.

Running, those remarks by the Judge are sentencing remarks, so made after the verdict. He was bound by the verdict of the jury when passing sentence. I don't believe we have heard anything of his summing up to the jury before they reached his decision.

Also, I agree with pp's that it is absurd to compare this case with that of either Kiranjit Ahluwalia or Francine Hughes.

Both the above had suffered years of physical violence (and in Kiranjit's case sexual abuse) at the hands of their partners.

Comparing those cases to this, with Paul Keene getting maybe a good tongue-lashing, and a few angry texts - which were as a result of him being out drinking (an amount that could floor an ox) all day, when he had left her at home with an 11wk old baby, is unbelievably crass.

Bruffin, punished appropriately.

The abuse was supposed to have been that she had been threatening to take the child away. How long could that possibly have been going on for when the child was 11 weeks old.

Yes, he didn't actually smash it down. He threatened to. Apologies.

"The abuse was supposed to have been that she had been threatening to take the child away. How long could that possibly have been going on for when the child was 11 weeks old. "

Where does it say it was only since the baby came? the report i read said that was a culmination of long term psychological bullying.

"MayorQuimby, that seems to be happening a lot though. I know you're Irish. You will have heard of the woman who stabbed her partner 60 times and she got manslaughter. Once? ok manslaughter. The next 59 times?"

I sat through a good deal of that trial. It was an horrific matter. She had abused him for years as well, she was a deeply disturbed woman.

I take your point that it does seem you can no longer murder a spouse it's almost always manslaughter, as with so much in matters which go to trial it comes down to the jury and what they accept as fact.
Maybe people find it easier to settle on manslaughter, or maybe (as has been seen on this thread) in matters of spousal/partner killings jurors feel that there will always be more to a story than they are told so convince themselves there is some "grey area"
Without being in the jury room it's very hard to decipher what is behind the trend

Running, those remarks by the Judge are sentencing remarks, so made after the verdict. He was bound by the verdict of the jury when passing sentence. I don't believe we have heard anything of his summing up to the jury before they reached his decision.

I think my major problem with this is the low sentence this man received.

I also think those judge's words, whether used in summing up or in sentencing are very telling - angry texts and threatening to leave a partner - where evidence has been heard that he was actually physically abusive to her - are seen as mitigating circumstances for him to batter down her door and murder her in a most violent way.

Anyone reading the transcript of the recorded voicemail cannot possibly believed that his behaviour was justified?