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.

Rufous I've also done jury service on a rape case and I do agree up to a point. I was quite relieved that the judge spelled out for us the facts and the bits that were for our judgement. But we still had to decide whether some aspects were beyond reasonable doubt or not.

That's a good point too Datun - in what other setting would strangling someone to death not be murder? Presumably it only would in this specific kind of case - a man doing it to a woman and claiming it was a consensual sex game - something else juries are more likely to believe not only because of the word of a man meaning so much but also because of mainstream pornography depicting this as something girls and women naturally want.

I wonder what the response would have been had it been a man strangling a 16 yr old boy in the same circumstances? The same, or different?

I agree stealth

But ours wasnt a rape case and the whole case rested on one date

So something like 'did the defendant decide to do the crime on the 26th of june'

And i agree you still have to do the reasonable doubt thing but some juries are very much led in one direction by the judge

And cases and judges vary

Not sticking up for the jury as i wasnt there and dont know the case, but sometimes its not as simple as a problem with the jury

We all wanted to find our one guilty...as they were guilty

Purely from my own interpretation of course but I think from some of the judge's sentencing remarks in this case she was less than impressed with the man's version of events.

Judge Mrs Justice Carr told the court: “You chose to engage in sexual activity which you knew to be dangerous with a very young drunk girl whom you had only met that afternoon and who, as you realised at the time, had never engaged in this type of activity before.

“Hannah was to your knowledge very drunk. She was also very young and vulnerable, and alone in a strange house. Indeed, you accepted in your evidence that you felt responsible for her.

She said that Morton had “enjoyed the domination”, having already tried it with a previous girlfriend.

She added: “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.

“She was in no position to object, trapped underneath you whilst you strangled her.”

She also called his conduct after her death in not calling the emergency services for 20 minutes "another chilling aspect".

She also called his conduct after her death in not calling the emergency services for 20 minutes "another chilling aspect".

Did he have sex with this girl? Was there semen? Was that comment meant to imply that he could've had sex with her after she was dead?

I don't think there's been any reference to sexual activity from what I've read - despite it being reported as a "sex game gone wrong" and him having climbed into bed with her uninvited before undressing her. I took the implication to be that he could have been getting his version of events straight in his mind before he called the emergency services - so he had a better chance of getting away with it. He also smashed her phone up in this time "because of all the alerts".

He also smashed her phone up in this time "because of all the alerts".

What, instead of just turning it off?

If I was a jury member, all these things would be signalling consummate liar to me.

Indeed. I presume they didn't because he's a man and so was taken at his word (never mind his rather clear motivation to lie).

If they had been two men, he would have been convicted of murder. Because she was female and a slag (what kind of 16 year old goes back to her boyfriend's friend's house with her boyfriend unless she's a total slapper?) and led him on, she deserved it.

And if that beautiful girl initiated kissing that ugly pathetic piece of scum, I'm the Duchess of Windsor

I think it could well be manslaughter if he mounted the same defence irrespective of the sex of the deceased.

It's about what can be demonstrated about his intent, not the characteristics of his victim.

Given the judges remarks, what sentence has been handed down?

I expect a jury would have convicted him of murder if the victim had been a boy or man. His particular defence relied upon her apparently indicating she was comfortable with what was going on (despite being utterly intoxicated) and in my opinion was aided by the belief girls and women are "into" this kind of thing which was probably held by some jury members (the latter I admit is obviously my own speculation). I'd also not be surprised at all if there were views along the lines of what JiggyTuff said. His intent is pretty clear from the evidence and the idea he was unaware he was killing her as he was strangling her is pretty far fetched.

The sentence was 12 years so he'll be released on licence after 6 years (so just over 5 years from now given I imagine he's been on remand since arrest).

I've said it before, but all these men who can't help themselves having accidents (strangling young women to death, tripping and inserting their penis into a young woman without her consent etc etc).... Society should really do something to stop them being so darn accident prone. Perhaps limit what they are allowed to drink, as that seems to be a recurring theme with these accidents. Maybe along with a curfew, as men seem to become more unlucky later at night, and we would be saving themselves from themselves if we insisted that they stay safely tucked up at home.

in what other setting would strangling someone to death not be murder? Presumably it only would in this specific kind of case - a man doing it to a woman and claiming it was a consensual sex game - something else juries are more likely to believe not only because of the word of a man meaning so much but also because of mainstream pornography depicting this as something girls and women naturally want.

Nolove, that is what is so chilling about this case and all others like it. Strangulation is something that you do to a human being if you intend to kill them. However, strangulation is also what men do to women as part of sex; it is part of the natural use of women. So when a man does it to a woman, it's not seen as one human being murdering another, it's viewed as a sex game, which the woman very likely wanted.

I found this bit you quoted from the judge to be particularly disturbing:

“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.

It's such a strange thing to say about a murder victim: that, on balance, she probably didn't give 'valid and informed consent' to being murdered. Can you imagine the murder of a man or boy being described in this way?

Two years ago in Canada, a man was acquitted of the murder of Cindy Gladue, a prostituted Aboriginal woman, after he successfully argued that the fatal injuries he inflicted on her, which included stabbing her in the vagina, happened as part of 'consensual rough sex'. He, of course, was found to be a regular consumer of torture porn.

Previously it was near-impossible for a woman in a rape trial to 'prove' that she hadn't consented to the sex (since she was assumed to exist in a state of pre-consent), but the existence of severe injuries or the death of the victim would have mitigated in favour of her 'innocence' and the man's guilt. Now, thanks to violent porn and the accompanying cheerleading of it from sex-positive fauxminists about how open-minded women LOVE being beaten and strangled during sex, we now have to 'prove' that we didn't consent to grievous bodily harm and murder.

Thanks to millennia of male supremacist propaganda, and particularly its specific 21st Century manifestation of internet porn, women and girls are now seen to exist in a state of pre-consent to bodily harm and murder. I would say that this shows unequivocally that 'enlightened' Western society does not see woman and girls as being human, but that doesn't go far enough: under this paradigm, where rape, torture and death is what we are assumed to secretly crave, we don't even reach the level of animal. All animals, after all, have an instinct for survival and self-protection. Instead, female humans exist in this unique state of self-negation, the only animals on earth who are believed to deeply desire their own annihilation. So it's no wonder that juries conclude that if men give it to us, well, we must have asked for it.

The only evidence toward his intent was his own testimony which apparently we can be expected to take at his word. Of course he wouldn't lie at all about whether he meant to kill her. No, that would be absurd!

If you continue to strangle an already unconscious person who presumably has the reflex response described up thread at some point, how can you not know you're killing her? He was on top of her, he could see what he was doing. It's insane to suggest he didn't intent to kill her.

There's a Sayers/Paton-Walsh novel, all of which hinges on whether the intent to kill was there.

I think it's called Thrones, Dominions.

Not a good parallel in some aspects, but the idea that sexual strangulation is not necessarily intent to kill is referenced then. Set until the 1930s.

I concur entirely DonkeySkin and the case in Canada you linked to is chilling as well. It's another way in which the normalisation of this kind of sex is so damaging; doubtless some enjoy it but the way it's now seen as "mainstream" and it assumed women and girls do. This isn't the first case in which it's been used as a defence either - it's becoming more common for men to use it as they and defence barristers know there's a reasonable chance juries will buy into the idea a woman/girl was likely to be keen on it. It's very useful for them, having consumed copious amounts of pornography depicting such violence against women to then, if they carry it out without consent (as clearly happened here) claim she either initiated it or was clearly "up for it" as pornography has contributed to a culture in which women always are and all love this kind of thing. It's extremely concerning to say the very least.

Intent or not, yet another poor girl has lost her life because yet another man is obsessed with violent sex and sees women as nothing more than walking holes.

Same old. Same old.

This case is horrifying. That poor young woman, and her poor family.

I've googled and found the following on sentencing for manslaughter - I hope the judge goes for the maximum of life or damn near it.

And has brought back memories - when I was a grad student, one of my contemporaries lived in some flats. His neighbour carried out an almost carbon copy of this crime - only the victim was a young male prostitute (male on male violence). He tried to claim it was a sex game gone wrong. He was found guilty of murder. Okay, so it's only two cases, one female victim, one male victim, but I find it interesting/depressing that the verdict was murder in the case where the victim was male. Clearly his defence that he didn't intend to kill, just intended to engage in kinky sex, didn't fly in that case.

I can almost see why the jury believed that reasonable doubt had been raised about intent to kill - and strangling doesn't cause gbh or wounding, it's pretty much all or nothing, so the CPS would have to prove positive intent to kill.

What I can't understand is why the sentence can't be higher. Surely this has to be at the very worst end of manslaughter, with added unlawful sexual activity. Why can't it go all the way to the maximum sentence?

it's pretty much all or nothing, so the CPS would have to prove positive intent to kill.

In that case this was "all", as the pathologist also testified. How on Earth you could strangle someone to that extent whilst on top of them, looking down at them, and not realise they're in severe distress due to what you're doing and struggling to breath is beyond me.

Unfortunately Hedgehog the sentence given was 12 years, so half served in prison.

Two years ago in Canada, a man was acquitted of the murder of Cindy Gladue, a prostituted Aboriginal woman, after he successfully argued that the fatal injuries he inflicted on her, which included stabbing her in the vagina, happened as part of 'consensual rough sex'. He, of course, was found to be a regular consumer of torture porn.

I'd be interested to read any case where a woman has managed to strangle a man to death during 'sex play', or where everyone agreed that stabbing him in the scrotum was sexxyy fun.

Here is an example of a similar case but the victim was gay male policeman-

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37978755

A man who strangled a Met Police officer before trying to dissolve his body in an acid-filled bath has been found guilty of murder.
Stefano Brizzi, from south London, admitted dismembering Gordon Semple, 59, when he was high on crystal meth.
The Italian national claimed PC Semple, who he met on dating app Grindr, died accidentally during a sex game.

I was once strangled w/o consent by a partner who was "curious" - at the time frightening and looking back I have no doubt he had no care whether I lived or died. This case is unbelievable.

I was once strangled w/o consent by a partner who was "curious" - at the time frightening and looking back I have no doubt he had no care whether I lived or died. This case is unbelievable.

Someone also attempted to strangle me once. Accused me of faking an organsm.

Although a massive slight on my acting capabilities, I couldn't fault his accuracy.

CHRIST Datun. I think we deserve a

Before I hit the bottle, here is another deliberate strangulation "sex game gone wrong" - a woman called Mandy McDonald

www.heraldscotland.com/news/12470927.Sex_game_killer_husband_has_sentence_cut/

In that case he got a whole 4 years- they owned sex toys and a French maids outfit so clearly his dead wife had consented to being strangled.

My delightful experience was just after this case was first publicised- we'd spoken about it earlier in the day (like "omg I can't believe what people get up to" was 21 and so naive ) and so that eve my 15stone, 30yr old romantic partner decided he'd have a go and to see what it was like. Even though it had "accidentally killed" this woman

FUCK ABOVE. I've just had a Google and have found this much much more horrifying summary of Mandy McDonald's death- they found her husband guilty of culpable homicide (Scotland) but she had a puclnctured bowel and was covered in injuries.

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/our-daughter-was-killed-then-they-destroyed-her-1-1299637/amp

What a bloody world we live in!