Man kills girl after strangling her "by accident"

[NoLoveofMine]

Apologies for the content of this thread.

This case has got to me somewhat: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-40670225

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4714598/Ex-McDonald-s-worker-obsessed-porn-jailed.html

I know people understandably don't like Daily Mail links but there's more detail in that article.

The man in question was convicted of manslaughter but cleared of murder for strangling a girl he'd met earlier on that day. He claimed applying pressure on her neck was consensual but she was proven to be in an extremely intoxicated state, the judge said in her summing up unable to understand what was going on if she was even conscious, had no history of liking this kind of thing, whereas the man was "into" this kind of pornography and had tried it with a former partner. The jury, however, believed his account that he had believed she was consenting to it, only meant it as a "sex game" and was horrified when he found out what had happened (despite the fact he waited over 20 minutes before calling an ambulance after she was dead which the judge herself said was "chilling" in sentencing).

There is more which incredibly troubles me about this case but in short I find it quite disturbing that a man clearly into pornography depicting violence against women, including the very method of violence he used here, can ply a girl (significantly younger than himself) he's just met (through her boyfriend) with drink, "guide" her to his bedroom supposedly to put her to sleep, then do this before showing "no remorse" (investigating police officer's words) can be cleared of murder by a jury seemingly because he claims she initiated "kissing" him (which can't be proven not to be the case as the judge said but it's just his word...I do wonder what motivation he could possibly have for claiming this) then apparently consenting (in an extremely intoxicated state even if this was the case) to having pressure applied to her neck. I've thought for a little while men could start using this kind of defence in a case like this and now it appears to have worked.

As the pornography must have included images of child abuse if he fantasised about doing this to a girl - presumably over 13 as strict liability did not kick in.

Men who watch images of child abuse and then attempt to act it out with girls are not representative of men in general. The awareness that it is wrong is much higher, because of the lengths one has to go to to procure it but it doesn't stop them. It's a fairly specialist psych area to try to unpick the motivations and what led them to sexual interest in children.

It looks as if he tried with an adult previous partner, and escalated to a child.

The manslaugher/murder here is to do with his intention. He persuaded a jury that his intent was not to kill (it was to abuse a child) but as the action led to her death and he did it, it pretty much has to be manslaughter. The sentencing can be the same for those two offences though.

You have to wonder about the jury's moral code, really it should be a no brainer.

A significant part of my issue is that he persuaded a jury his intention wasn't to kill. That's something which concerns me greatly: a jury took him at his word, that everything he said was the case, despite the fact he had very clear motivation to falsely claim it all. Added to that the facts that he plied her with alcohol, guided her to his bedroom, strangled her, failed to call an ambulance for over 20 minutes after her death then showed "no remorse" to police over days of questioning were disregarded because he said she initiated kissing him and agreed to him applying pressure on her neck (despite it being proven she was in an incredibly intoxicated state so unable to consent to anything anyway). It definitely didn't "have to be manslaughter" or the CPS wouldn't have pursued a charge of murder and I'm hugely concerned at the jury's mindset and what that says.

I am increasingly thinking that juries have no place in cases that involve sex crimes. Time and time again they demonstrate they don't understand or worse yet simply don't care about the fate of girls and women.

I've thought that for a little while as well isuppose. I think it's because misogyny is so pernicious; victims doubted at every turn by juries, men often taken at their word no matter what as well as all the other prejudices and attitudes so many have which will inevitably be found with a significant number of those on juries (interestingly shown by a recent Channel 4 programme "The Trial").

I find it incredibly saddening and enraging how little the lives of girls and women matter.

I would never support the abolition of jury trials.

He definitively intended to harm this child, and took steps to ensure her compliance. But that does not mean he set out to murder someone.

Now I know intent does not have to be of long duration, but proving that he ever had an intent to kill (as opposed to an intent to rape a child violently which seems to be beyond doubt). As he had done this before with an adult, then he could reasonably have believed it would be a non-fatal encounter.

I am increasingly thinking that juries have no place in cases that involve sex crimes. Time and time again they demonstrate they don't understand or worse yet simply don't care about the fate of girls and women.

I agree or at the very least they should have some sort of training before cases involving sex crimes. (Not sure if they do already?)

This is absolutely disgusting, and people say porn is harmless

Yes, the default assumption is that women are lying and men are truthful. Combined, I think, with a underlying belief that sex crimes aren't really that bad, and certainly not bad enough to warrant "ruining" a man's life over. It is utterly depressing, and I don't know what can be done to combat it.

He definitively intended to harm this child, and took steps to ensure her compliance. But that does not mean he set out to murder someone.

What harm did he intend to do?

The only "doubt" in this case is his own testimony. The testimony of someone who has killed someone and has a clear vested interest in his version being believed. Someone who has an obsession with pornography depicting exactly the same kind of violence against women he used on a girl so intoxicated (after he'd kept giving her alcohol) she couldn't have understood what was going on - he certainly could being an adult, 8 years older and not drunk.

"'intoxicated and in no position to object, trapped underneath you whilst you strangled her.' The court heard Hannah, who had battled and beaten anorexia a year earlier, may have even been unconscious through drink when Morton - who was six stones heavier than her - struck.

I find it absolutely enraging that someone obsessed with violent pornography, who plied a 16 year old girl with alcohol, guided her to his bedroom, climbed on top of her when she was either unconscious or so intoxicated she wasn't aware of what was going on (whilst he was relatively sober and well aware of this), strangled her to the extent he killed her, waited 20 minutes before calling an ambulance ("chilling" according to the judge), showed no remorse in police interviews can then be taken completely at his word by a jury and will probably only spend 6 years in prison.

1. Children cannot consent. so its irrelevant that he believes she initiated (sex/him killing her by strangulation) because she kissed him, she could not consent. Kissing is not initiation of sex, or consent.

2. This is not an isolated incident or a one off. There is a recent and more horrific case involving 2 children.

3. Women are put under pressure to commit certain acts or change the way they look or groom by men who watch porn. Its not rare or isolated.
   Labiaplasty was the logical next step from waxing.

4. Porn is becoming increasingly violent, BDSM is more acceptable. Porn search terms demonstrate that men want the youngest girls they can legally watch or procure.
   Its become so normalised that we dont turn a hair at sex robots with a rape setting, and are only slightly concerned over sex robots that look like children. the belief is that acting out rape or pedophilia is ok if its only a doll, tha tit might help prevent attacks.
   This is despite the fact that pedophiles are not encouraged to act out. It is not considered prevention treatment to let them keep a stash of images of child abuse.

5. Men state they feel pressured into trying out acts by peer pressure.
   A quarter of women say they think its normal to be coerced or pressurized.

The internet has made porn easy to make, distribute and access; and it is changing what our society believes is normal and acceptable.

There is no training or education given to a jury on a rape trail and the barristers play on ever 'stereotype' they can to fight their case. I was on a rape jury - 95% of the jury helg horrible stereotypes which I (as a lay jury member but by chance also a therapist for sexual abuse survivors) spent 2 weeks passionately fighting against. I dread to think the views held without me (and a male jury member who also helped educate them with me)

Great post Baggy. One thing I should have made clearer is Hannah Pearson was 16 but I concur entirely with what you've said. Even if kissing took place (which we only have his word for anyway) it's not consent to anything, let alone when in such a state.

As you also say pornography is extremely damaging and this isn't the first case where a woman or girl has been killed by a man who regularly views it and all the violence against women it depicts.

adifferentnameforthis that's extremely worrying though not surprising at all regarding the jury you were on. It's horrendous that these stereotypes and rape myths abound and the knock on effect this has on juries. With regards to rape conviction rates I've heard it said that a key obstacle now is the attitudes held by juries; acquittals in some cases stunning prosecution counsel (and sometimes defences as well). How enraging that even having gone through the attack, having to report it and all that goes with it, bringing it all to trial, a victim can see it all fall apart as the jury buys into rape myths.

Having read the article this was a murder trial not a rape trial so a lot of the above comments simply don't apply? To have been convicted of murder there had to be premeditated intent to kill so it sounds as if the jury came to the correct conclusion on the information in the article, as he intended to rape her but not murder. The definition of manslaughter is an illegal act (such as gbh or rape) which unintentionally led to the victim dying so fairly clear cut manslaughter. I suppose it just seems worse because it was rape rather than gbh or dangerous driving that lead to the girl dying - however that doesn't make it murder. Question is whether he should also have been tried for rape in addition to this sentence.

Yes it's awful. I was quite naive before I went on it. I truly believed public view had changed from 50 300 years ago. Still at least now I can support my clients in a more educated fashion with some idea of what a jury actually thinks

Tfoot75 I can't see how the comments don't apply. What he claimed occurred was his defence against the murder charge - the consensual acts and so forth. Yet he was taken on his word despite the fact he climbed on top of a 16 year old girl either unconscious or so intoxicated she wasn't aware of what was going on, whilst he himself was relatively sober, strangled her until she died, waited for 20 minutes (I expect the prosecution said getting his story/excuses straight in his mind, which I'd have agreed with them on) then finally called an ambulance. I don't believe there was any evidence of sexual activity. The only facts which can't be disputed are she was hugely intoxicated, he undressed her and he strangled her. The conclusion the jury reached was purely down to his own testimony. If only women were afforded such treatment by juries when they're actually victims.

It is horrendous adifferentnameforthis. After going through so much anyway (and continuing to after the trial) so many women and girls are then faced with juries with attitudes as you experienced.

Murder does not need to be premeditated! If I in a fit of rage picked a knife up and stuck it in someone's temple that would be murder. Even if I did it without any planning because a knife to the temple is almost guaranteed to kill.

The only reason why this might be considered manslaughter is that the jury decided that he thought he knew what he was doing. I mean he thought he could strangle without actually killing her as he had done this with previous partners.

This does not take way from the problem of porn, coercion and misogyny that society has. Just in this case I can see why a manslaughter charge was brought.

He was charged with murder but convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter. He'd done it with one previous partner and regularly viewed pornography depicting it. His word was taken by the jury but to me strangling a 16 year old girl you've plied with alcohol and created a situation in which you're able to guide her to your bedroom and undress her, whilst she's incredibly intoxicated, then decide to strangle her is rather sinister to say the least. The judge called his actions "chilling", the police said he showed "no remorse". He is clearly a danger to women and girls.

“You say that she started kissing you, to which you responded, kissing her. But you then sat astride her on her stomach. You are a tall man – some six foot two inches – and weighing 13 to 14 stone. Hannah was only five foot three inches and weighed less than eight-and-a-half stone.

“Without any prior permission, you began to strangle her with your left hand; she did not tell her to stop. You say that you told her that you would stop if she wanted you to and she said “OK”.

“You then carried on, but now placing your right and over her throat as well as your left and increasing the pressure to what you described as 4 or 5 out of ten. As Dr Biggs, the prosecution pathologist stated, this must have been on any view much more severe than gentle pressure."

"And she said 'you enjoyed the domination', something which he had seen on a porn DVD previously and had also tried with at least one previous girlfriend.

“I am sure, as the jury was, that Hannah did not give valid and informed consent to this escalated activity in the knowledge that it carried the risk of some bodily injury."

Speaking after Morton’s sentencing Detective Inspector Justine Wilson, of Nottinghamshire Police, said: "Hannah had put her trust into this man, he took advantage of that trust.

"He showed no remorse whatsoever. I can only describe him as a cold and calculated individual.

OK so if he knowingly applied pressure for long enough then he must have known it would kill her. Then that is murder.

Also when the carbon dioxide levels get too high in the lungs a body automatically fights for air. In this case that must've happened. So in this case I do believe that he should've known that what he was doing is deadly. So it would be murder.

Why wasn't he charged with rape and murder?

That's what I've been thinking since reading about this case. Hence why I'm so concerned at the attitudes of the jury (and juries generally), the word of a man overriding scientific evidence. I don't see how you could be strangling someone to death and not be aware of what you're doing given that - but the jury believed him. As I said, what a shame women don't get believed by juries when actually victims yet a man with every motivation to create his own version of events is having taken the life of a girl.

As far as I can tell there isn't any evidence of sexual activity (at least I've not seen it mentioned). He claims she started kissing him (only his word and she was extremely intoxicated) after he'd put her to bed and decided to climb in next to her, he undressed her then climbed on top of her and began to strangle her seems to be the order of events.

But if he had an erection and was prepared to use it it was sexual... I guess the line in the sand was drawn in favour of the man (as usual) but I'd say that getting into bed, kissing and strangling was a prelude to intended sex ... I mean I can't imagine why else he'd be doing what he did unless he intended to use her body for the purposes of his orgasm?