When the focus is on a woman's spending rather than a man's violence

[GreyGauntlet]

The Daily Mail really knows no bounds of decency. This article implies Leanne McKie was complicit in chasing a lifestyle she and her husband could not afford.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5538401/Inspector-strangled-wife-learned-secret-54-000-loan.html

Tte focus on their spending, rather than his violence is staggering.

The first part of the headline sounds like they crashed their helicopter whilst pissed up on Bollinger and cocaine or something. Not that he karate chopped her and then throttled her till he killed her.

All murder is abhorrent and I do not condone it in any instance whatsoever. (Honestly, we are all adults debating here so does that fact really require pointing out?) However if, like me, you have followed this case closely from its outset, then you would know exactly what the court heard from the financial analyst. You'd also do well to spend some time going through the McKie's social media trail. To say that Mrs McKie had no idea of her family budget and outgoings is naive beyond belief, and smacks of a desperation to push an entirely separate agenda onto this thread. Next you will all be telling me that she was forced and coerced to shop in John Lewis and M&S.

What has any of that got to do with her being murdered by her husband? It's not a mitigating factor or a something that diminishes what he's done. It's utterly irrelevant.

What did you learn from Darren McKie's social media trail, shkrbby?

And can you quote where the financial analyst blamed Leanne for running up this debt?

I am addressing the posters on here who appear to be under the illusion that she knew nothing about her family finances. My postings have zero to do with seeking mitigation. He should hang.

she may have indeed been coerced into shopping at JL and M&S
The report said he controlled all their finances
If you would like to know more about corecive control there was an excellent report on Womans Hour today which included women (high earning women married to succesful, 'charming' men) who were given strict instructions about what to buy

Mysoginistic Daily Mail strikes again.

Only in the Daily Hail... this article is yet another reason not to read this crap.

Her poor children. Shudder to think that when he took out the loan, he must have been thinking that if he applied in her name, spent the money, then killed her, the debt would be erased with her. Shocking.

I suppose she was also coerced to post on social media about all her shopping sprees. Including the posts where she explicitly states that she was so "happy I persuaded Darren" to buy this and that. And lets not forget the coercion to go on those expensive holidays. The horror. The horror.

What did you glean from Darren McKie's social media, shkrbby?

@MrsMaisel, you have clearly not followed the trial with a toothpick. It was explicitly disclosed that her murder would not wipe any a single penny of debt, and that neither had life insurance.

The people, like yourself, emotionally knee-jerk posting on here would do themselves well if they went away and read up on the case in detail, and trawled through the McKie social media. But I know that is not in the interests of the agenda that you are desperately trying to push.

You don't seem to be answering, shkrbby.

I'll ask again.

What did you glean from Darren McKie's social media?

It's clear the Mrs McKie was the primary poster to social media and that she enjoyed posting public comments from open accounts about her lifestyle.

Shkrbby wow you’re desperate to come to this animal’s defence. I have no agenda I assure you. I’m saying he probably figured if he bumped her off he would get rid of two problems not one. Totally irrelevant whether he actually achieved that end, rather whether he thought would happen.

It’s a disgusting article. All the focus is on the spending, which is totally irrelevant, regardless of who was doing the spending, and regardless of who knew about the spending.

The article tells us that ‘Mrs McKie....confronted her husband, branding him a ‘liar’...causing McKie to flip and kill her with his bare hands’

Causing

It’s there in black and white. She caused her husband to murder her. It was her fault.

It's been reported pretty fairly on our local news (NW) but that articlear is typical Daily Mail misogyny. That he could claim it was manslaughter is unbelievable. He tried to get rid of her body FGS! She seems to disappear as a person in any reports. I would take his assertion that it was the first time he was violent with a serious pinch of salt!!

"What did you glean from Darren McKie's social media?"

So the answer is nothing. Which, of course, exonerates him. And damns her.

It is an interesting experiment of Trial By Instagram Conducted By Thickos though. Channel 5 should do a programme.

I've already clearly stated above what I believe should happen to him, and I've also outlined the purpose of my postings. I will not be reiterating this to anyone on here who has trouble in the reasoning and comprehension departments.

In a murder trial I can assure you that what someone "probably figured" and what they "actually achieved" is closely scrutinised. This is not a kangaroo court or mob justice scenario.

readers of the daily mail have to take some accountability too - I remember all the articles on Mugabe and the focus was on what his wife had spent money on, it's awful that this is of interest to anyone given the many acts of violence by the Mugabe regime.

The headline there should've been 'surprising news: violent tyrannical dictators also allow govt funds to be misused on extravagant shoe purchases' - the emphasis is in the wrong place, always.

And don't get me started on how Cherie Blair was hounded about her clothes, what she spends money on, etc.

@Popchyk please try to keep the debate civil.

It would also be interesting if you could detail how you believe he is exonerated, while she is damned.

Because you haven't criticised his social media posts, shkrbby.

Only hers.

Does the use of the word ‘causing’ not sound like apportioning balm to you, shkrbby?

Blame, not balm 😬

Why do I need to criticise his social media content when he is already guilty in my eyes and under a court of law? Again I refer you to the raison d'être of my posting.