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.

He's apparently shown remorse in court (no doubt having been recommended to by his barrister) which the judge said she took into account but the police officer in charge of the investigation quite pointedly said outside court he had "shown no remorse" at any stage prior to that. I find the jury's verdict extremely worrying.

It's never really remorse though, it's self-pity and an attempt to reduce their sentence. Remorse would be pleading guilty at the first opportunity, being truthful about what happened and accepting whatever sentence was given.

Very much so Assassinated; it's hollow, purely for personal gain and with the guidance of their barrister.

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.

This sums it up really. It's appalling that the testimony of a man who so obviously had bad intentions (getting her drunk etc) has been taken at face value. His character and behaviour were so obviously criminal amd violent that his testimony should have had no value.

Exactly WomanWithAltitude. Such a clear motivation to give a false version of events which played down his culpability, aided by his barrister, yet taken at his word by the jury. The word of a man who'd manufactured a situation in which he could strangle an incapacitated 16 year old girl to death.

I agree power - it's incredible that Elaine's murderer was caught and convicted at all, what with him being such a respected member of the community, so even a slight shred of evidence being missing is likely to have led to a not guilty verdict.

I don't know enough about criminal law , let alone English criminal law other than the Crown will go for manslaughter (or culpable homicide as Scotland has it) if they think they will have difficulty proving the mens rea for murder.

Culpable homicide is committed where the accused has caused loss of life through wrongful conduct, but where there was no intention to kill or "wicked recklessness".It is an offence undercommon lawand is roughly equivalent to the offence ofmanslaughter in English law.

I assume the reasoning is if they fail in a murder conviction they don't get a second chance to go for a manslaughter charge.

What amazes me is the readiness of juries to believe that girls and women , especially young , pretty and attractive women, are so willing and ready to have sex with fat and unattractive blokes they have just met.

I am not by the way suggesting that less attractive women are fair game and have lower standards but does it never enter their heads to think why would she have been interested in him?

What amazes me is the readiness of juries to believe that girls and women , especially young , pretty and attractive women, are so willing and ready to have sex with fat and unattractive blokes they have just met.

And agree to highly specialised 'sex games' (whilst virtually unconscious).

Girls and women seem to be judged to be in a default state of consenting to whatever act boys and men wish to do "to" them, in my opinion largely due to women being viewed as primarily existing for the sexual gratification of boys and men, fuelled also by pornography. As a consequence whether a girl or woman would actually be interested in a man or want to be strangled, or subject to anything else a man fantasises about doing, doesn't seem to be an issue; it's assumed she must have wanted to because her primary purpose is this.

I don't know enough about criminal law , let alone English [& Welsh] criminal law other than the Crown will go for manslaughter (or culpable homicide as Scotland has it) if they think they will have difficulty proving the mens rea for murder.

Hi Lass

In E&W, I think that the indictment can have alternative charges on it - to be read out at the beginning of a trial - I believe that is the way the CPS arrange such trials [I could find out as a friend was a senior CPS prosecutor].

Or maybe the Jury would have been directed by the Judge that if they were not satisfied it was murder, then they could return a guilty verdict to manslaughter instead. As these offences against the person type-offences fit together like the shells of a russian doll, once you have proven the outermost shell, you have the evidence for those inside.

As it was obvious that Morton had killed Pearson, I would have thought that his defence position would have been guilty to manslaughter - and that would have given him a reduction in the overall sentence.