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

[DrizzleandDamp]

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!

I think there's been a building body of data which suggests that outcomes such as this re fairly inevitable. Because such incidents mirror our ** pre-existing models/stereotypes of how men and women will behave - to the extent that we sort of discount the man's utterly inhuman behaviour, and concur in the assumption that the woman murdered was "vindictive."

** By "our" and "we" I mean society. Not feminists who are always pretty clear-sighted about the horrendousness and the absolutely utterly dreary ordinariness of this sort of male violence and victim-blaming.

That it is so ordinary (2 women a week) is what I find so depressing, and anger-making.

It is about the moment that they take the action. That is when the requisite intention is judged

Long planning is an aggrevating factor and can be taken into account at sentencing. But the intention can be formed the split second before

Interesting Nicky - thank you. I guess it’s very hard to prove intent.

It must be infuriating to be involved in a case and not get the outcome you “know” is right.

This verdict has depressed me today. So normal, isn't it, for men to commit acts of violence towards women, kill them and then claim they 'snapped' and the woman contributed towards her own death.

Like shite she did, you fucker.

@SmileEachDay the intent is judged as at the time of the act

Onceuponatimethen

It is about the moment that they take the action. That is when the requisite intention is judged

That’s interesting. Is that the legal view?

SmileEveryDay Oh absolutely, I was raging yesterday when an accused appeared at court yesterday on a lesser charge (Sexual offence) and I worked my butt off to prove the more serious one but the bigger picture is that they need to prove the charge. I would rather he is convicted of something then get a not guilty on everything. Murder is a hard charge to prove.

@knittingaddict

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.

Only because of what I mentioned about intent needing to be clear in the jury's mind. If a person decides in the heat of the moment to kill someone, they can argue in court that they lost the plot and didn't mean it and then it becomes manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Plus, how does the prosecution prove they changed their mind in a split-second and intended to kill? It's impossible. So to charge someone with murder the CPS need to be sure they can prove that person planned to kill. They didn't prove it with this case, unfortunately.

Sorry to be so graphic, but it takes time to strangle someone. It takes minutes rather than seconds and a fair bit of strength and pressure

Not always. I had an ex that strangled me. It took only seconds for me to lose consciousness. I was told that if he’d used a bit more pressure, my trachea would have collapsed so that even though he released me when I collapsed, I would never have woken up due to being unable to get any air in. The attacker can do enough damage in seconds to your throat so that you essentially can still suffocate to death during the minutes after they release you/ stop strangling you.

Thanks once - X post there

CPS website says “ ). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.”

In case anyone wants more info

So depressing this case

@MissMarplesGlove

I hope the prosecution appeals

This cannot happen except in very limited circumstances where fresh evidence comes to light

@Nicknacky

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.

Ah, that's interesting.

It's hard to imagine lighting someone on fire could be intended to do anything other than kill them.

OTOH, I have met a few people in my life who I can imagine doing something completely heinous with no particular intent at all, except to be agents of chaos and hatred. Which is almost worse in a way, it seems less human.

PlanDe I concur, and add into that secondary strangulation, where you drown hours after from the damage done. My attacker knew exactly how much pressure to apply to get his kicks but not kill me. absolute bastards.

I too struggle to understand how the jury came to their decision in this case.

On the case, yes OP I agree it’s that rough sex defence which needs to be scrapped completely. So many murderers walk free because of it.

OMG @PlanDeRaccordement

Goosefoot Not that it makes it much better but the fire was set after death and he received an additional sentence for that.

Fuck him.

Thoughts with the victim, her husband and the two children he is now raising alone.

Only because of what I mentioned about intent needing to be clear in the jury's mind. If a person decides in the heat of the moment to kill someone, they can argue in court that they lost the plot and didn't mean it and then it becomes manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Plus, how does the prosecution prove they changed their mind in a split-second and intended to kill? It's impossible. So to charge someone with murder the CPS need to be sure they can prove that person planned to kill. They didn't prove it with this case, unfortunately.

Right - so if they can show it's premeditated somehow, that is clear to the jury.

Or if the action, taken in the moment, that is something that could never in anyone's mind be anything other than a murder attempt. Crushing someone's skull deliberately, maybe.

But if it's an action in the moment, and there is even a possibility that the person might not have been trying to kill, it's difficult for the jury to be sure enough because they cannot access the inner thoughts of the individual, and the facts would look the same either way.

Oh, @DrizzleandDamp so sorry you have experienced that too. It’s terrifying.

There are literally no winners here - it’s such a legacy for all of the kids to bear

Are juries getting worse?

I sat on two cases and it felt as if 9 of my jury had immediately decided innocence or guilt almost on sight and just waited for some evidence to justify their original prejudice.

In the first, less serious, case there was very little evidence to speak of and the main thrust was he must've done it, who else could've? The prosecution demonstrated means and opportunity but nothing else. The 9 wanted to convict and talked another one round.

In the second more serious case the same 9 of my fellow jurors felt the nice white male defendant had been wronged by the female victim and they liked his barrister, and nobody wanted to convict him even though there was no doubt that he'd done what he was charged with. The defence barrister gave us an out and 9 of us took it. And they talked the same woman round again.

I still look for that defendants name in the news, certain he'll do it again.

Meanwhile it was also revealed today that Brehmer was known by his colleagues in the force as a 'sexual predator' who preyed on 'vulnerable' emergency workers.

If this was known by his colleagues in the force then why the hell was he allowed to continue serving?!

"Blue Family"

As I said on the other thread, I will be interested to read the sentencing remarks once they are released.

That might shed more of a light on why it's a manslaughter conviction and not a murder one.

I think it's important to remember that they both carry the same maximum sentences, that trials are held to obtain justice for both the victim AND the offender (i.e. the offender, if guilty, should be punished but punishment has to be fair and the victim can't demand that someone's hand is cut off for nicking a tenner, for example), although the latter is often forgotten or ignored, and that the state needs a watertight case in order to be able to convict someone of a crime and remove their liberty from them. "But it's obvious he's a murdering bastard" won't cut it.

Murder is a hard charge to prove beyond reasonable doubt. And that's the key - beyond reasonable doubt? Did he kill her? No question, he admitted it. Did he intend to kill her? That's where it gets tricky. Until we can learn to minds (or the killer admits it), we have to look at circumstancial evidence. The only person who truly knows is the killer, the rest of us are making educated guesses.

He's not getting away with anything - just like those convicted of PC Harper's killing didn't - he's been convicted of an extremely serious crime.

Like I say, I will be interested to read the sentencing remarks.