Why is this Manslaughter? why does "loss of control" mitigate him??

[StuffezLaBouche]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297700/Financial-advisor-strangled-PHD-student-girlfriend-death-brutal-assault-recorded-friends-voicemail-jailed-seven-years.html

Yes it's yet another intelligent, talented woman murdered by her partner. Wasn't his fault though. She provoked him, obviously, as we women seem to so often do, so she kind of deserved it. Hence the piss poor sentence.

He killed her with an electrical flex. Not exactly spur of the moment. She was covered in injuries. Even worse, the murder was recorded on a friends voicemail. Keene was heard telling her "shut up or you're dead," and snarling "why are you crying? I may kill you because you're a fucking t*"

The judge accepted it had happened because of the emotional abuse she had inflicted over a sustained period. But does this sound like a man who temporarily lost it, awful as that is?

Why does this happen every single week? Sorry tis so incoherent...

You might well ask. I suspect the judge has had "difficulty" ascertaining who was the abused and who was the abuser

The defence of reaction to sustained abuse, rather than an overwhelming attack, was hard won.

Of course, since enactment, it has been available to both sexes.

I would be very disappointed if this defence were not available to those who kill their partners are years of such abuse, for it would mean we were back to the days of automatic murder charges for them.

Fair comment, auntie Stella, but (forgive my absolute legal ignorance) I would have thought that defence would have been more appropriate when a long time victim has "snapped" and lashed out, rather than a sustained attack like this. Strangling someone to death takes a while, I've read.

Well, that is for the Jury, after hearing the full evidence.

Op I absolutely agree with you. A pathetic sentence for a horrific crime - but it's not the first time and it won't be last. Sadly.

Lawyers seem to be adept at defending these men using terms like 'provocation', 'emotional abuse' - but it sounds like yet another example of the same old script: Drunken and violent man murders his partner because she asserted herself/threatened to leave/whatever. And now another child is left without a mother.

It happens twice a week in the UK.

He tried to strangle her with the bath robe tie then when that didn't work he used the electrical cord. That is not momentary loss of control.

For once the green-arrowed comments in the Fail are quite reasonable.

Eg: I once had an abusive partner - when I threw him out lots of friends 'sided' with him because he was so convincing about me being the 'abuser' in the relationship. How can these people sit in court and say that this woman was the emotional abuser when she was not there to defend herself. It come's across that she was complicit in her own death - an outrageous implication. People like this guy are often psychopaths and completely convincing. There is simply no excuse for what he did.

Juries are made up of ordinary people, who often hold views like those cited above in morning's post. Judges, too, often share this perspective. So, they can be predisposed to believing in mitigating circumstances to merit a less harsh sentence.

In this case, the killer will probably serve half the sentence, and quite likely have contact with if not residence of the young child when released.

For morning, read running!

Stuffez, I think the "momentary loss of control" part of provocation was altered somewhat because women who kill their abusers tend to have at least an element of pre-mediatation (eg fetching a knife rather than snatching one up mid-fight) owing to the difference in physical strength and general vulnerability. See link below.

The jury had acquitted him of murder, presumably because they accepted the loss of control. The killer pleaded guilty manslaughter. I don't think the judge had much choice but to acknowledge his defence, because it had been accepted by a jury.

It looks like the judge deemed there to be a substantial degree of provocation (see link) although I am not sure how much mitigation there might have been for the guilty plea:

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/manslaughter_provocation/

I would hope that more evidence re EA was introduced than the row described on that day as otherwise I don't see how that would be "substantial".

This is outrageous, he chose to break the door down and they have a recording of him brutally murdering her, telling her he was going to kill her while she begged for her life. Only a psychopath would kill someone like that. It wasn't a momentary thing, this was a sustained attack and he repeatedly stated his intent to kill during the assault. No excuse for a manslaughter verdict.

As for 'emotional abuse', he was out drinking on an all day bender while she was at home looking after a young baby, most men would get a bad reaction from that type of selfish behaviour. I've had enough explosive arguments with dp, he's never tried to kill me because he's not a fucking murderer (nor I him, I'm not one either). God, this makes me furious

That poor woman, her poor family and that poor little baby What a horrible injustice first from her murderer, then from the idiot jury and judge. A pox on all of them