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!

@safariboot

An absolute cock and bull story he told and I can't believe the jury swallowed it.

How do you know the jury believed him?

Whether they believed him or not, they can only convict him of murder if there is enough evidence to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Opinions and beliefs should not feature in a jurors decision - only evidence (or lack of).

What I find very confusing in cases like this is that I assume juries are usually 50:50ish on gender given the law of averages, so we aren’t talking about decisions made by men.

So it’s women we also need to reach if we want societal change on issues like this?

Not exactly - the problem is that all you need to do to make a jury acquit is make three people 99% certain (rather than 100% certain). Then they won’t have a majority.

Juries are really soft because it’s incredibly easy to sow a tiny seed of doubt in 3 out of 12 people’s minds. As a defence barrister, that’s all you have to do.

I mean, in this case my point doesn’t really apply because he was unanimously acquitted I think - the defence (remarkably) managed to sow a seed of doubt in 11 or 12 people’s minds.

But I think juries often acquit the defendant of murder in cases like this because they know if they aren’t 100% sure about murder, they have manslaughter to fall back on - the defendant won’t walk free.

A manslaughter tariff is 0-life. Let's hope he still gets a hefty sentence

This is why at times having a jury is not the best way for a decision to be made

Would they have been able to put aside their judgement of her or not feel in some way moved by his emotional appearances in court (especially from males it’s known this can sway a jury)

He may have not met her with the intention to murder her that doesn’t mean at some point he didn’t change his mind

Once again a man is let off killing a woman who he can’t control

He didn’t convince them it was an accident. That isn’t how the legal system works. The prosecution had to prove that he deliberately intended to take her life

But I also agree its easy to see here how the jury knew the loss of control defence was there and he had pleaded guilty to it.

What I can’t understand is that the CPS decided to take this to trial, given his guilty plea. Yet failed to secure the verdict.

Sentencing is key here and a proper indication of how seriously loss of control is taken by the legal system

@Buddytheelf85 but that wouldn’t return a majority verdict would it?

At first the jury gets told they have to reach a unanimous verdict but later Can be told

“time has arrived at which a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty by a majority can be accepted.

They will be told what the permissible majority is and this will depend on the number of jurors left on the jury:

12 jurors - the majority verdict can be 11-1 or 10-2.

11 jurors - the majority verdict can only be 10-1.

10 jurors - the majority verdict can only be 9-1.

9 jurors - no majority verdict is permitted (so a majority direction could not be given to a jury of 9, or the jury would be instructed that a majority verdict would no longer be permitted once their number reduced to 9).“

So for a majority acquittal if there are still 12 jurors then 10 jurors have to be convinced that the prosecution has not proved murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Very unlikely all those 10 people would be male in a case like this

@ItsAlwaysSunnyOnMN

This is why at times having a jury is not the best way for a decision to be made

Would they have been able to put aside their judgement of her or not feel in some way moved by his emotional appearances in court (especially from males it’s known this can sway a jury)

He may have not met her with the intention to murder her that doesn’t mean at some point he didn’t change his mind

Once again a man is let off killing a woman who he can’t control

By "at times having a jury is not the best way for a decision to be made" do you you mean the decision YOU think it should be? You do know if a judge thinks the jury has made a massive mistake in the result they can in in some circumstances override them.

Also, yo do know there are many cases where men were the victims and the same thing happened. This isn't a misogyny or patriarchy issue, its just how the justice system works. I don't hear people complaining when women get lesser sentences han men for the same crime.

www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/18822442.judge-sum-timothy-brehmer-murder-trial/

On reading this I have to say I am pretty sure he meant to kill her. But pretty sure isn’t enough here and I can see how there is enough to have a seed of doubt

This is appalling. So long as people like him are allowed to get away with murder then women are not safe. And they’re not safe around the police.

Shouldn’t the standards of conduct for a police officer be higher not lower than the general public?

Yes I do know that a judge can overturn the decision it’s very rare to. And do I always have faith in our justice system particularly when it comes to violence against women - absolutely not. I have worked in DV and know exactly how often men get away with being violent towards women and too many judges have made appalling comments in regards to female victims

Men have been the victims of their female partners accidentally strangling them as they can not control them

No I am not aware of all these men being accidentally strangled to death are you ?

What I don’t understand is why do the defence lawyers always seem better than the prosecution?

Do they deliberately give the victim’s family a rubbish lawyer? It feels really hard to get a solid conviction nowadays and that the law seems to be stacked on the side of the accused not the victim.

@Watermelon999

What I don’t understand is why do the defence lawyers always seem better than the prosecution?

Do they deliberately give the victim’s family a rubbish lawyer? It feels really hard to get a solid conviction nowadays and that the law seems to be stacked on the side of the accused not the victim.

• There are many cases where the prosecution win - why do you think the defence barristers are always better?

• The victims family were not the prosecutors and did not have a lawyer, the Crown was the prosecution.

@Watermelon999

What I don’t understand is why do the defence lawyers always seem better than the prosecution?

Do they deliberately give the victim’s family a rubbish lawyer? It feels really hard to get a solid conviction nowadays and that the law seems to be stacked on the side of the accused not the victim.

The prosecution comes from the CPS - you would decide to go into prosecuting. This would have not been anything to do with the victim; family. The CPS decided to prosecute for murder

the Defence lawyer would come from a chambers

The maxim is innocent until proven guilty. It is far harder to prove guilt beyond reason than it is to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the jury.

Here there is already a guilty plea to manslaughter so it would have been to prove intent

Murder convictions are actually fairly hard to prove its why it is often manslaughter (or in the US 2nd/3rd degree murder)

He has been sentenced to Ten years 6 months. It's in Bournemouth Echo

Story here

I think the judge’s comments make clear the judge believed the pathologist’s evidence that this was no accident and Brehmer knew perfectly well what he had done.

Having read the judge’s comments I think he is of the same mindset as many on this thread that this was a deliberate act not an accident.

That man will be out in 7 years. Wouldn’t surprise me if he does this again. Meanwhile hope he has a truly horrible time in prison.

Well he got ten years only. So sad.

The pathologist said this about the neck injuries "She said it was difficult to envisage a situation where a struggle in the car imparted the necessary degree of force or could explain the extent and severity of the neck injuries."

Hand have been tied due to the judgement but from reading about this I don’t think her neck was damaged in a ‘kerfuffle’

YANBU. He's a murderer and it's clear from his behaviour towards his wife and his sick reputation at work that he's a nasty piece of work all the way through. No doubt he'll be back in 7 years stuffed with tips from his cellmates on how to be a cleverer misogynistic bastard.

My heart goes out to the innocent parties in this. The children and the unknowing spouse(s) and their families.
Great post from**@40UsTTC** re his wife.
Sadly the verdict had to be manslaughter because of the laws pertaining to murder. Should the bar for murder be lowered ?
As others have said, strangling someone takes time. When did he decide to kill her ?
I believe the sentence for manslaughter should be increased. No time off for good behaviour but time added for bad behaviour.
I am sickened that he was not called out on his predatory behaviour in the police force.
I don't approve of adultery, if you are unhappy, leave the relationship.
Claire Parry was murdered.

His poor wife and dc, and the family of the deceased

Sorry to be crude but all of this devastation caused by the fact that he loves power and "playing games" and can't control his dick. Ten years, potentially out in seven, is woeful.

I don't approve of adultery, if you are unhappy, leave the relationship. That presumably goes for the woman in this case as well then who was also committing adultery at the time....

TBH ten years for manslaughter is a pretty high sentence and he would have been likely to have only got a couple more years for murder.

But there must have been something in the evidence which is not published in the Daily Mail which led a jury to unanimously find him not guilty of murder. the rule is that they have to find guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. It’s easy for people here to make statements based on the limited information given to them by the tabloids, but when you’re in court on a jury personal feelings can’t come into it, you have to look at the actual evidence, not the supposition of a hack journalist.

The whole thing seems bloody messy on all sides TBH. So they were having an affair for ten years. They were both married, both had kids, Did her husband know she was cheating on him as well I wonder? And then it all blows up because she wants to know about his other a affairs even though she’s one of them, and it all ends up in this.

The whole thing was hideous from beginning to end and while his crime was undoubtedly worse the actual victims here were the families...

So having scolded MN for speculating on the basis of “hack journalism”, you go on to say:

The whole thing seems bloody messy on all sides TBH. So they were having an affair for ten years. They were both married, both had kids, Did her husband know she was cheating on him as well I wonder? And then it all blows up because she wants to know about his other a affairs even though she’s one of them, and it all ends up in this

And then you say that Claire Parry is not the actual victim:

The whole thing was hideous from beginning to end and while his crime was undoubtedly worse the actual victims here were the families...

Jesus.