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.

Not necessarily. There are cases where men have murdered women/girls for the sexual thrill of murdering them without the intention of rape.

Yes, I suppose so.

Maybe 'murder with additional intent to produce sexual pleasure' should be a separate crime.

is it just me or is the level of detail in the DM article salacious?
I really recoiled from reading it it seemed like a script. Like the kind of thing the defendant would have enjoyed.

I believe the starting threshold for sentencing is higher if someone is convicted of murder and the motive was sexual. However, there are cases in which the motive was sexual but this doesn't happen due to evidence not being allowed to be presented at court. Joanna Yeates for example; the judge didn't permit the prosecution to admit evidence of the man accused (and fortunately subsequently convicted) of murdering her's obsession with similar violent pornography to the man in this case, despite its striking similarities to what he did. On that basis I think he wasn't convicted of such a murder so received a lower minimum tariff even though the judge said he suspected a sexual motive in the murder.

As I understand it you don't need to have intent to kill to be convicted of murder, you only need to intend to cause grievous bodily harm. That rule is in place to prevent scenarios where people intend to seriously hurt someone and then by their dumb luck the person ends up dying. It is thought that if you intend to seriously injure someone you should reasonably be able to foresee that their death might be a consequence.

I'd have thought this rule probably does apply in this case, but the jury may not have fully understood that.

Similar happeened when sentencing the murderer and rapist of an 80+ year old women...who apparently was in to sex games with relative strangers

Its not fair

I know that my comment is childish and nowhere near as erudite as most of the posters on this board

But its not fair

Not at all Rufus that sums up my rage with it all as well.

I thought the law was such that it's not actually legally possible to consent to risky sex practices like severe (potential injury causing) bdsm and erotic asphyxiation because of this very issue. It's confusing why rules don't seem to apply.

newt I often find that with DM articles about murders or disasters, makes you wonder too where they get the info from :(

If he strangled her to death, there must be a point at which she would be thrashing about in horror and objection, yet he continued.

Or. She was already unconscious through intoxication and he continued whilst realising he would have no chance of knowing if she had died.

Either way, he kept going. I don't see how it can't be murder.

adifferentnameforthis

I'm not familiar with the law, but I can't help thinking it would be very useful for some kind of tariff to be attached to these cases. So the viewing of violent pornography being an aggravating factor and get taken into account by being allowed to extend the sentence on that basis.

It would at least send a message about the insidious and constant degradation of women and girls involved in this sort of crime. It would be a very effective public dot joining exercise.

You're not supposed to be able to claim "loss of control" as a partial defence when you kill your partner when she says she's leaving you either. There are specific guidelines put in place to stop it happening. But it happens and murder is downgraded to manslaughter.

Sorry in case not clear I was responding to Bertie's point about what courts allow.

Exactly Datun. This is why I'm so aggrieved by the jury acquitting him of murder in this case. They've ignored those points simply because of his testimony that she agreed and said she'd let him know if she needed him to stop (despite him being sober and her completely intoxicated to the extent even the judge said in summing she may well have been unconscious). The word of a man accused of murder (so not exactly objective) overrode all of that.

Indeed venus, whilst women who kill violent partners often in self-defence are regularly tried for and often convicted of murder.

So this man meets a young woman, a 16 year old girl, that he's never met before. He takes her back to his house, plies her with alcohol until she is incapacitated. Then takes her to his bedroom, takes off all her clothes, and then strangled her to death. She would have been too drunk to properly understand what he was doing, if not altogether unconscious.

He is only convicted of manslaughter, because, on his word alone, he claims that he didn't intend to kill her. There is no independent evidence at all to support this.

How in any sane world is this not murder? These are the actions of a cold killer, not a someone taking part in a consensual sex game that went too far. I find it incomprehensible.

Sounds like he raped her as well. Yuk yuk yuk. The whole case is horrible. Poor Hannah.

But if he claims his defence was that she would tell him to stop, and she didn't, so he didn't, what does that even mean??

It's her fault?

"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."
Indeed. But they're generally thought to be lying unless proved beyond all doubt

That's exactly it Assassinated. I'm enraged by it.

Pretty much, I think, Datun. He's claiming he made that completely clear (of course) and she never told him to stop, thus saying she knew exactly what was going on and didn't ask him to stop. Never mind that she was so intoxicated she couldn't have been aware of it and that when you're being strangled though you'd probably not be able to ask someone to stop it'd be made pretty obvious (unless as you said she was so intoxicated she wasn't even conscious). But the word of a man overrides all else.

Quite PolarBear.

I think people often interpret "beyond reasonable doubt" as "beyond all possible doubt whatsoever. It doesn't mean you have to believe any cock and bull story a lying and guilty man dreams up to escape a rape or murder charge. See Ched Evans. See Oscar Pistorius.

She never told him to stop, so he didn't. Stupid, unconscious women.

He didn't strangle her because she said something to him, did something to him, because he wanted to rob her, he strangled her so he could have an orgasm.

I agree nolove. Infuriating.

I have dine two seperate jury trials

At the end of both the judge was very clear on the procedure for reaching a verdict

Think of a flowchart with very strict branches

The second case we all found the dependent not guilty...because we had no choice but to follow the strictures of a particular date

Rufustherenegadereindeer1

What would have happened if you had decided to not follow the flow chart?

Done not dine

For goodness sake

I am literate...honestly i am