Another woman killed during "rough sex"

[EmmaGrundyForPM]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/07/darlington-man-jailed-for-four-years-for-choking-woman-during-sex?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

How do men keep getting away with this?

@ArblemarchTFruitbat

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.'

I think that is an excellent idea. I thought the so called 'rough sex' defence had been outlawed in the Domestic Abuse Act 2020 but the comments from We Can't Consent to This imply that the legislation is actually not watertight enough to prevent Sophie Moss's killer using this defence.

It would be possible to set up a website to do that, just as sites are used to record copyright.

Compare and contrast- yet another woman killed by strangulation but the Swiss judge roundly rejected the attempt at a 'sex game gone wrong' defence.

Accidental strangulation was unlikely, he added. “Death by strangulation is not instantaneous — whoever inflicts it has all the time they need to see what is happening, to see the victim suffocating without stopping,” he said.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anna-reed-was-killed-by-the-bouncer-she-was-bankrolling-bnxkdj2wm?shareToken=27148bd91dda2a347c96faec92567245

The murderer has been jailed for 18 years.

A slightly different case which perhaps deserves its own thread but I'm just adding it in here for now. It doesn't seem to have attracted much publicity for some reason but it really lays bare The dangers of getting involved with camera work.
Truly shocking details.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10046949/Publican-killed-jail-police-quiz-death-webcam-girl-inquest-told.html

Truly shocking details:

47 images and videos included "the deliberate torture of people who are clearly alive at the beginning and seem to be dead at the end".
A pathologist reviewed the videos and believed "At least three of the people being tortured were dead by the end".

I want to know what sex were these people? Have their deaths been recorded? Investigated? Prosecuted? Were their bodies even found?

The impression from the article is that these were just part of the evidence used in reviewing the case but have they triggered an investigation in their own right?

All this online extreme material feeds into male violence against women and we end up with these terrible cases, that we do seem to be seeing with increasing frequency.

JFC.
OK so at what point are we able to hold ISP's to account for facilitating this?

Report in the Times today of an interview on Times Radio of the wife of Sophie Moss's killer - the piece is by Julie Bindel and the legal editor so I'm guessing she did the interview. She says his letters 'reek of self-pity' and

“It’s like he thinks this has happened to him, rather than because of him. He’s not taken responsibility for what he’s done at all.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/killer-sam-pybus-felt-more-remorse-for-his-dog-than-his-victim-says-wife-bhw3knwlz?shareToken=4f025df16fff0bc7057f4ad4e7a37e19

She is supporting official moves to have his sentence increased - the attorney general has said it's too soft.

I thought the so called 'rough sex' defence had been outlawed in the Domestic Abuse Act 2020 but the comments from We Can't Consent to This imply that the legislation is actually not watertight enough to prevent Sophie Moss's killer using this defence.

This begs the question - What exactly would make the 'defence' watertight ?

This begs the question - What exactly would make the 'defence' watertight ?

sawdustformypony I asked the question because I didn't understand why the defendant was able to use that defence when it had been outlawed.

I think the government web page implies that the defendant should not have been able to use this as an excuse (but I have no legal knowledge or training):

www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/consent-to-serious-harm-for-sexual-gratification-not-a-defence

The ITV news states the low sentence stemmed from the CPS deciding they did not have enough evidence to support a charge of murder so he was prosecuted for manslaughter:

www.itv.com/news/2021-09-30/wife-of-killer-campaigning-against-justice-system-weighted-against-women

This report states that the court heard that Sophie liked being choked. I want to know why that was considered to be admissible evidence.

sawdustformypony I asked the question because I didn't understand why the defendant was able to use that defence when it had been outlawed.

I know it will not be popular here, but it's not complicated and you will need to be able to see through the nonsense (and often in the form of blatant lies) peddled by groups like We cant consent to this and this forum too. The press too aren't interested in the truth only selling copy and clickbaits and so are perfectly happy to jump on the bandwagon of WCCTT. Maybe they’ll spin this around one day and start attacking WTTCC in turn for misleading us all – but that is in the future. ‘Fury’ will, no doubt, be one of the words used when denouncing.

If you cant see through their lies, then the case of Pybus doesn’t make any sense and you are left obviously confused. Now, maybe WCCTT didn’t intent to mislead the public from the off, but as they rapidly rose to prominence, I think it was too late for them to simply apologise and admit their mistake.

The short answer, is that he didn't use that defence. That defence doesn't exist - and probably never has in England & Wales, (seem to remember fictional storylines about duelling being illegal centuries past in E&W) but the law was definitely settled in the case of R v Brown as a House of Lords case albeit that was an assault case - as per your government link.

Running out of time, as work is calling …to be continued.

The defence Pybus used was that he had not intended to kill Sophie Moss. That is essentially the difference between the crime of murder and the crime of manslaughter. The law takes the overall culpability of the defendant into account when it comes to sentencing.

In deciding on whether there is an evidence to support his defence, the Court would have looked at various strands of evidence. Any evidence that Sophie Moss had predilection for this type of activity would definitely have been allowed. As would forensic evidence of how much of a struggle had taken place before death occurred. Its not a question of shaming Sophie Moss' memory. It is what it is - and the Court is entitled to try to discover the truth.

Had Pybus said I killed her and intended to kill her but she consented to this - then there would be no defence.

Oh yes, the 'I didn't mean it'' defense which makes it not-murder when a man strangles a woman so hard he complains to the police that his hands hurt.

''Yes I ran over him with my car, then reversed over him, then run over him again. But I didn't meant to kill him when I ran him over, and he had a crush fetish and had been squashed in the past by me and other people. He liked it. And anyway I was drunk.''
The pertinent part of my defense is in bold.

Do you want a serious discussion about the law or don’t you ?

Had Pybus said I killed her and intended to kill her but she consented to this - then there would be no defence.

I guess any defendant might theoretically say this but realistically they are going to say the victim had 'a predilection for this type of activity'.

Does this mean that defences will still continue to argue that women like Naomi Connolly and Natalie Moss consented to astonishing levels of violence against them? I had naively hoped women would have more protection.

There was another case in which two rugby players were accused of rape. The prosecution counsel displayed the victim's knickers to the jury, suggesting that they showed she was hoping to have sex that night. The players were found not guilty.

Examples like these must surely reduce public confidence that victims will be treated fairly?

Saw your post too late in the evening - I’ll reply tomorrow.

Why is it that in the Joanna Yeates case the jury weren't given the info about his fetish for strangulation porn, yet when women report being raped their previous sexual history is dragged through the court as "evidence" that she must have "wanted it" to discredit her as a victim?

@Beelzebop

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.

I don't know, if dh accidentally strangled me to death during sex, I wouldn't want him getting life.

It’s a choice to take drugs. Doesn’t stop it from being illegal to supply drugs. Just ban strangulation - it’s pretty dangerous.

@MooChops89

Why is it that in the Joanna Yeates case the jury weren't given the info about his fetish for strangulation porn, yet when women report being raped their previous sexual history is dragged through the court as "evidence" that she must have "wanted it" to discredit her as a victim?

I would like to know the answer to this also.

I guess any defendant might theoretically say this but realistically they are going to say the victim had 'a predilection for this type of activity'.

I suppose they could, but if they want the jury to believe them and give credence to their defence case, it would seem sensible to call other evidence other than merely what they have to say themselves.

Does this mean that defences will still continue to argue that women like Naomi Connolly and Natalie Moss consented to astonishing levels of violence against them? I had naively hoped women would have more protection

No, there is no defence to be had in arguing that the victim consented to a high level of violence (ABH and beyond). However, it is used in mitigation where the defendant can use it in order to reduce the sentence to be handed down. Certainly, in the Natalie Connolly case, it was not used as a defence but only in mitigation.

None of these women will have consented to their own deaths. They might have agreed to their aether urging a hand on their throat in the same way that men consent on women having their mouthes on their dicks. That doesn’t give us the right to bite it off nor does it give the man the right to squeeze our necks till we die.

*partner placing

Abitofalark noticed this from your post -

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.

/////

Interesting how a rape victim, should her case ever see the inside of a courthouse, is allowed to have her sexual history and preferences dragged out for all to see.

Makes me sick

Same with the rugby player case that I mentioned, tellmewhenthelangshiplandscoz. Whatsapp messages from the defendants mentioning 'slags' and similar phrases were inadmissible. Victim knicker style was not.

Explicit There were no mitigating factors in the Naomi Connelly case. Nobody ever ever ever could have willingly consented to a bottle of cleaning fluid being poured into their vagina.