Mumsnet Logo
My feed

to access all these features

Feminism: chat

Another woman killed during "rough sex"

143 replies
OP posts:

lazylinguist · 07/09/2021 20:17

They keep getting away with it because men's right to have sex with whoever they want, however they want, is apparently prioritised above many things, including the consent and safety of women.


NutellaEllaElla · 07/09/2021 20:22

Makes my blood boil


EmmaGrundyForPM · 07/09/2021 20:25

@lazylinguist I know, I guess it was a rhetorical question really. I understand that there's not enough evidence to prove pre-meditation and therefore murder, but its never women who "accidentally" kill men in during "rough" sex. It seems to be a get-out clause for a lot of men

OP posts:

Plumtree391 · 07/09/2021 20:31

It is so horrible, scary to just think of. I wonder what it is that makes someone crave that sort of experience. I wouldn't want to hurt someone I care for during intimacy, my husband wouldn't have done so either. It beggars belief.

I'm so glad not to be on the dating scene now, you never know what sort of situation you could find yourself in. Ugh.


Longdistance · 07/09/2021 20:41

He got such a poxy sentence. He’ll be out in two years to terrorise or murder someone again. I’m still reeling about another case where the guy got 18 months. Utterly sickening Angry


NewlyGranny · 07/09/2021 22:43

"Not prolonged or forceful" strangulation? Good God, she died of it!


NiceGerbil · 08/09/2021 02:28

4 years for strangling a woman to death

Fucks sake

The no prolonged or forceful bit is somewhat contradicted by. He assumed he'd done it because his hands hurt. His hands hurt. That doesn't scream not forceful to me tbh


ItsDinah · 08/09/2021 02:40

The Brighton cat-killer got 5 years.


Gothichouse40 · 08/09/2021 03:04

Dinah- exactly. I in no way wish harm on any animal, but it's bloody disgusting that a cat's life is worth more than a womans. I am really worried about the number of women who are subjected to violent sex. Is this the future my granddaughter has to look forward to? It's just frightening. The justice system in this country is appalling. Where is the justice for these victims?


ErrolTheDragon · 08/09/2021 08:48

There's something in this that needs publicising, I think.

The pathologist said her injuries “do not suggest either very prolonged or very forceful strangulation or strangulation which was actively resisted”.

What this implies is that even short, not very forceful, 'consensual' strangulation can be fatal. Doesn't matter if you've done it before, it can be fatal.
The bloke doesn't really know what the hell he did this time because he was extremely drunk but if we take that forensic assessment as being accurate then it's something people tempted to try these acts need to be crystal clear on. I can't imagine how anyone knowing that possibility would want to risk doing it to another person, and if they do then they're knowingly acting recklessly.


bebanjo · 09/09/2021 09:49

I believe there is an appeal to have this sentence looked at.


Abitofalark · 09/09/2021 15:11

This reminds me of arguments in the murder trial of the sexual predator who strangled Joanna Yeates. He denied murder, claiming he had only put his hand on her mouth to stop her screaming and had squeezed her neck for only 20 seconds.

The BBC reported:
"Mr Lickley, prosecuting, asked pathologist Russell Delaney about Tabak's statement that he held Miss Yeates's throat "for about 20 seconds" and only used moderate force.
Dr Delaney replied: "That period of time would be sufficient to cause the signs of venous obstruction and would be long enough to result in her death."

The pathologist had found 43 separate injuries all over her body, including cuts and bruises and a broken nose, indicating a violent and prolonged struggle for her life and that it took some time to inflict those injuries and painful death.

After the trial it came out that he was involved with prostitutes and violent pornography but that wasn't allowed in evidence in court. He denied any sexual motive for her murder and it wasn't the prosecution's case.


NiceGerbil · 09/09/2021 22:47

The bloke who got fuck all for killing a woman and calling authorities not till the next morning saying 'she's dead as a doughnut' is another awful case.

The court somehow found that she consented to the things that killed her. Despite the fact they also accepted she was too intoxicated to consent.


EmbarrassingAdmissions · 11/09/2021 12:23


I believe there is an appeal to have this sentence looked at.

There was an appeal in the case of Natalie Connolly and there was no revision to the sentence.

EmmaGrundyForPM · 11/09/2021 15:08

@Abitofalark. there was a documentary about that case on TV last week. There was a bit about the "only 20 seconds" when the Prosecution waited 20 seconds before speaking - it's a hell of a long time. It also showed that after the time at which Tabak murdered Jo Yeats, he was watching very violent pornographic videos of women being strangled.

OP posts:

Abitofalark · 12/09/2021 00:47

[quote EmmaGrundyForPM]@Abitofalark. there was a documentary about that case on TV last week. There was a bit about the "only 20 seconds" when the Prosecution waited 20 seconds before speaking - it's a hell of a long time. It also showed that after the time at which Tabak murdered Jo Yeats, he was watching very violent pornographic videos of women being strangled.[/quote]
Yes indeed Emma about his activities, which were actually before and after. I saw that programme in the listings but I didn't watch it. I followed the trial - it was the first one to be tweeted live direct from the court - and was dreading the whole time that he wouldn't be convicted on the evidence such as it was.

He had the topmost criminal defence barrister in the country and he concocted a story, relayed by his barrister, that she had invited him in (barrister said she was bored and lonely), he'd mistaken her friendly overtures and tried to kiss her and she screamed so he put his hand on her mouth and the other on her throat to stop her screaming, purely for that reason and not with any intention to kill her.

Independent evidence was worryingly thin and who's to say the jury wouldn't believe him and his barrister? The woman in a couple attending a party nearby had heard a scream at a specific time, a different man heard screaming but wasn't sure when or where and another neighbour heard nothing. I kept thinking Thank the heavens, thank the universe, thank everything for that woman and the coincidence that she was there at that precise time. Joanna's screaming and the woman's hearing it, is the one thing that could prove he lied about the time, and nail him. Please let it be enough.

During the trial, the judge and barristers adjourned to chambers several times. These were applications and arguments for and against the judge allowing certain known facts and information in evidence. They weren't allowed. We had no idea what it was about.

The judge summed up, instructed the jury that they weren't to judge him on the fact that he'd been known to have lied to the police but only on the evidence and whether he intended to kill her - and sent them out at lunchtime on Wednesday

They came back at lunchtime on Friday, unable to agree a verdict. The judge quickly decided he'd accept a majority verdict and sent them back out. They came back the same afternoon with the 10 to 2 guilty verdict - might seem unfair for a crime as serious as murder but all I was thinking was that it was brilliant on the part of the judge not to let it run on into another week. I never doubted that he did it.

Then the news started pouring out of the media about Tabak's sordid violent sex and pornographic activities that the judge hadn't allowed the jury to know and it became instantly, blindingly clear why it wasn't unfair, with the knowledge that the judge had, to accept a majority verdict and to wrap it up quickly rather than let it run on.

The prosecution hadn't tried to prove a sexual motive but the judge mentioned in sentencing that there was a sexual element. The degree of violence was clear from the pathologist's reports. Let no one conflate that with keeping someone quiet or 'having sex' as it is sometimes framed. These cases we keep seeing are crimes of violence.

That trial brought home to me how much hangs on managing a trial and all the decisions to be considered and made while it is running. Badly handled and it could lumber on pointlessly. It was the right verdict and an immense relief but it's still a case of blatant victim blaming and a terrible fact of murder by a ruthless predator hiding in plain sight, living an ordinary stable life, as we thought, in an ordinary flat with his girlfriend.

Some time after he was imprisoned, more things came out and further charges were brought for which he was convicted of child sexual abuse based on material that was found. He was given an additional prison sentence for that.


NiceGerbil · 12/09/2021 03:09

What really bothers me with this is that when the woman is dead. If man says she liked being throttled during sex. Then there's often nothing to counter it.

Surely the starting point is. That generally women do not like being throttled during sex. And it should be proved that she was very likely to have been ok with it.

In the end a woman has been killed because a man strangled her to death.

And the starting point seems to be that is pretty standard in heterosexual encounters.

But it's not is it.

It's very dangerous and very niche.

Why is the starting point set there? It makes no sense.

Just something else in the long list of things that men who rape/ kill say in court and for whatever reason it's all yep that seems likely.


lanadelgrey · 12/09/2021 19:30


NiceGerbil · 12/09/2021 23:53

The bit that jumped out at me was he said when he came to as it were he realised his hands hurt.

I mean that doesn't indicate brief/ not hard does it FFS.


Mammyloveswine · 19/09/2021 11:14


The bloke who got fuck all for killing a woman and calling authorities not till the next morning saying 'she's dead as a doughnut' is another awful case.

The court somehow found that she consented to the things that killed her. Despite the fact they also accepted she was too intoxicated to consent.

That case was horrific... he sexually assaulted her with a trigger bottle of carpet cleaner, whilst she was unconscious but apparently she had asked him to do it. He then inserted his whole hand inside her vagina to remove it, snapping it and causing horrific internal injuries and a haemorrhage.

The expert (male) gynaecologist who testified said there was no evidence to show she had resisted.. given she had the equivalent of 5 bottles of wine along with a shit load of drugs the toxoligist had already said she was likely to be unconscious.

She also had a "blow out fracture" to her eye socket which the judge accepted "she may have done stumbling into a door way".

Natalie died alone, with just her skirt pulled up around her waist, in a pool of blood at the foot of the stairs.

John broadhurst supposedly found her around 9am then called an ambulance however his iPhone showed him going down stairs at 6am (this was never investigated as evidence he was up earlier and failed to summon help). He also sprayed bleach on the bannister and also in natalies face to clean her up (as he didn't want her to "look a mess").

He was charged with murder however the prosecution did not think the jury would find him guilty.

He served 20 months in prison and is out now.

We can't consent to this is an amazing campaign group that highlights so many shocking injustices.

Beelzebop · 19/09/2021 11:22

When an incident happens the actual incident, not whether it was supposedly set or not, should be focused on. Its murder, they should get life.


PermanentTemporary · 19/09/2021 11:30

A vulnerable woman?

All women are vulnerable if they are with a violent strangler.

I'm not saying women never kill men; it does happen, though not very much. But women almost never strangle men because physically it is much more difficult for us - smaller hands, much less grip strength, larger necks, more able to fight back.

All chokers on the hookup sites i went on claimed they only did it because the women wanted it. And there are women who apparently like it. It's one of the few personal choices I would say is genuinely antifeminist, as it's creating a dangerous environment for all women.


ArblemarchTFruitbat · 19/09/2021 11:45

It makes you want to deposit some kind of affidavit with a solicitor: 'I do not enjoy being strangled/choked/suffocated during sex. Any such action would be performed against my will and without my consent.'


Limejuiceandrum · 20/09/2021 10:47

Yeah. I’m tempted to send it in an email to a friend or something.
I wonder what John broadhurst company does and I wonder if he’s been shunned in his community


Notcoolmum · 01/10/2021 19:58

His hands hurt?! Ffs 😢

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Sign up to continue reading

Mumsnet's better when you're logged in. You can customise your experience and access way more features like messaging, watch and hide threads, voting and much more.

Already signed up?