Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think you don’t “accidentally” strangle someone to death?

259 replies

DrizzleandDamp · 27/10/2020 14:00

I give up, no murder conviction for this man:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884251/Police-officer-41-not-guilty-murdering-wife.html

There is no point me pursuing my case when these are the decisions made!

OP posts:
Blondiney · 27/10/2020 16:21

Sickening.

murteplod · 27/10/2020 16:23

I don't usually like speculating on these stories because we have access to limited information and a supposedly impartial jury has all the details of the case, and to some extent you want to trust the judicial system.

But sometimes you're just like... How can this be the result? Just how??

stackemhigh · 27/10/2020 16:23

He described the incident as a 'kerfuffle', claiming he 'fell on top of her by accident more than anything' and his arms must have 'slipped up' around her neck while he was behind her in a 'piggy-back position'.

This is such bullshit. Do women's lives mean so little?

It was always the unwritten rule of the affair that you don't ask about the other people but all of a sudden she wanted to know all about my life.'

So it was her fault.

SmileEachDay · 27/10/2020 16:25

BertieBloopsMum

I think I understand the difference-

Murder - with malice aforethought

Manslaughter- without malice aforethought

Malice aforethought- the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime

How long does that “intent” need to happen for? An hour? Two days? The 5 mins after she sent the text message (when he could have just left the car himself?)

Conkergame · 27/10/2020 16:37

It’s unbelievable. So now you’re allowed to murder a woman as long as it’s by strangulation, as then you can just say it was an “accident” due to a “kerfuffle”.

That poor woman’s family.

murteplod · 27/10/2020 16:39

I understand manslaughter for situations like, you punch someone and they fall and hit their head, or you drive dangerously and hit someone. Both deserve to be punished but in neither did you set out to kill them.

I can't see the same argument for strangling someone to death. There's only one reason to strangle someone, and that's to kill them.

Chanjer · 27/10/2020 16:39

I think if you knowingly engage in a violent action that's likely to result in death then it should be murder and not manslaughter

He's a policeman, trained in restraint technique and fully knowledgeable that excessive pressure to the neck can very easily result in death. Having prior knowledge of such techniques should be an aggravating factor in deciding your charge

There's a school of thought that says you can actually die or have permanent injury caused in hardly any time, which is one of the reasons that erotic asphyxia is so dangerous. Apparently related to the combination of arteries being compressed

LakieLady · 27/10/2020 16:39

@MissMarplesGlove

Well, to many people, women aren't fully human.

It's outrageous, but as Germaine Greer once said something like: "Women can't afford to recognise how much men hate them."

I hope the prosecution appeals. This case gives carte blanche for any man to murder his partner.

And who was it who said that "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them"?

No fucking wonder, when complete bastards like this are around.

SmileEachDay · 27/10/2020 16:41

Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them"

Margaret Atwood, I think.

She wasn’t wrong.

LakieLady · 27/10/2020 16:41

@IEat

For murder there needs to be prove beyond reasonable doubt of intent, that the offender set out to kill the other person. That they preplanned the act.
I believe that having the intention to seriously harm them is good enough for a murder conviction.
LakieLady · 27/10/2020 16:42

Thank you, @SmileEachDay, that sounds right now you've said it, by I really couldn't remember.

LakieLady · 27/10/2020 16:44

@Conkergame

It’s unbelievable. So now you’re allowed to murder a woman as long as it’s by strangulation, as then you can just say it was an “accident” due to a “kerfuffle”.

That poor woman’s family.

Especially if they've sent a "vindictive" text to your wife, it would seem.
knittingaddict · 27/10/2020 16:45

@TatianaBis

Intent doesn’t mean preplanned it means a decision taken to kill - which can be at the time of the event - as opposed to manslaughter which is unintentional.
That was my understanding too. It can be murder if premeditation took place seconds before the act.
Nicknacky · 27/10/2020 16:45

I was involved in an investigation where the victim was strangled, then set on fire once dead (not premeditated) and the plea guilty to culpable homicide was accepted and he was sentenced to 9 years if I recall correctly.

So this isn’t unusual verdict by any stretch. Not that that makes it morally right!

Goosefoot · 27/10/2020 16:52

@Nicknacky

I was involved in an investigation where the victim was strangled, then set on fire once dead (not premeditated) and the plea guilty to culpable homicide was accepted and he was sentenced to 9 years if I recall correctly.

So this isn’t unusual verdict by any stretch. Not that that makes it morally right!

Is culpable homicide essentially saying it counts as murder and the person is at fault, but there is no admission to particular intent?
Longwhiskers14 · 27/10/2020 16:53

@TatianaBis

He must have had a shit hot defence lawyer, or a thick as pig shit jury.
I don't think you can point fingers at either. The law is very clear – in the case of murder the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt the person on trial intended to kill the victim and that it was premeditated. In this case that would be him going to meet her in the car park with the very clear intention of taking her life. However, the case as it was presented in court said he went to break things off and they rowed and she ended up dead as he tried to push her out of the car – it's not clear cut at all that he went with the intention of murdering her, hence why the jury had sufficient doubts that he was guilty of that charge.

It's really crap, but that's the law as it stands. At least because he did admit killing her and tried to cover it up he'll still get a lengthy sentence for manslaughter.

SmileEachDay · 27/10/2020 16:57

case of murder the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt the person on trial intended to kill the victim and that it was premeditated. In this case that would be him going to meet her in the car park with the very clear intention of taking her life

Is that true? Legally it would have to be before he met her?
What if he decided to kill her when he was in the car?

SlightlyJaded · 27/10/2020 16:57

The use of the word Kerfuffle makes me furious. It's a soft and playful word and he would have been advised to use it by his solicitor to plant a vision of childish/clumsy/accidental behaviour. Smart and sinister.

dottiedodah · 27/10/2020 17:02

This happened quite near to us actually , and its a very quiet family type pub as well .I think its absolutely disgraceful ,he has got away with Murder quite literally .He sounds like a predatory male ,and I cant help thinking the male influenced legal system had felt just because they were having an Affair ,that she was somehow partly to blame and "asked for it" which is complete and utter bullshit .The poor womans 5 children are now Motherless ,and Brehmar apparently was worried about what HIS mum would think,Fucking well unbelievable!

Nicknacky · 27/10/2020 17:03

Goosefoot This is the definition in Scotland...

Culpable homicide is the killing of a person in circumstances which are neither accidental nor justified, but where the wicked intent to kill or wicked recklessness required for murder is absent.

There is no manslaughter in Scots law but culpable homicide is the equivalent.

Longwhiskers14 · 27/10/2020 17:03

SmileEachDay My admittedly vague understanding is that it has to be beforehand, because even if he changes his mind in the moment and decides to kill it's still not murder because he can argue a loss of control – and then it becomes manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. But I'm not a lawyer and someone who is might be able to confirm (or deny!) this.

SmileEachDay · 27/10/2020 17:07

Nicky do you know?

How long before the act does someone need to decide they’re going to kill in order to make it murder?

knittingaddict · 27/10/2020 17:10

In this case that would be him going to meet her in the car park with the very clear intention of taking her life.

What makes you think that Longwhiskers14? Surely murder can be something you decide to do in the moment and can be seconds before the act. Harder to prove maybe, but still murder.

If anyone can safely restrain someone then it's going to be a policeman.

Nicknacky · 27/10/2020 17:10

SmileEachDay There can never realistically be an exact time from on it, IYSWIM. Each enquiry is different and all sets of circumstances differ.

I’ve been involved in a few murder enquiries, I think they have all resulted in culpable homicide verdicts. One is going through the courses which should be murder, no doubt in my mind and again, there is no pre medication involved in that one either (that we knew of)

PicsInRed · 27/10/2020 17:10

This is such bullshit. Do women's lives mean so little?

Sadly yes. For some time now, the automatic almost "get out of jail free" has been to claim a sex game gone wrong. In other words, a violent, gruesome rape is legal as long as you kill her (see: poor, poor Natalie Connoly) - and if you kill a woman you just violently raped, you also either get off completely or receive a slap on the hand.

It is so disturbing, in fact, that people will look back on this era for women, from 100 years in the future, with both disbelief and horror. It's genuinely dystopian, but like slow boiled frogs we, as a society, don't see it.