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.

No I don't believe that in this instance that it is appropriating blame. For all we know this article was written by a bored, tired, poorly paid Daily Hate lackey who simply copy and pasted the defence verbatim. Incidentally how would you rehash the sentence?

Well, you don't need to criticise his social media.

In exactly the same way that you don't need to criticise hers.

If you offered a balance between the two social media presences then it would be one thing (still utter nonsense, of course). But you're not.

You are choosing to focus on her and her perceived shortcomings (based entirely on judging her social media content), and not him.

You are demonstrating exactly what is wrong with the original article, although I don't think you are quite aware of that.

I would rehash the sentence thus:

Mrs McKie....confronted her husband over the debt, and an argument ensued, during which McKie killed her.

And yy to bored Daily Hate journalist. That’s exactly it. It annoys me that someone can earn a decent wage writing such bollocks. It would be nice if these people gave a shit about the impact of their words, but I don’t think they do. Either that or they are mind-bogglingly dense.

@Popchyk Unfortunately I am going to have to stop responding to you because you are clearly missing the point to my postings entirely, and I certainly do not have the time, nor inclination, to repeat posts until they sink in, fully comprehended. My apologies.

@waterlego I have to agree to your rephrased sentence. It is more succinct than the original, however, I would change your word 'killed' for 'murdered'.

you are clearly missing the point to my postings entirely lolol

The point shkrbby is he had motive. Irrelevant whether it was correctly founded. Are you being intentionally thick?

I don't think she's being intentionally thick, no.

I would like to ask the posters on here if they have digested through the Instagram account of their renovation project?

www.instagram.com/burford_home/

I have not looked at their Instagram feed, no, because it is of no interest or relevance.

@MrsMaisel I am sorry but it was up to the jury, once presented with all facts and financial figures, to find motive, not an online kangaroo court. In your case, your motive for him, was not found.

Actually I’ve just looked at the Instagram feed and the only comment I have to make is that the last picture was posted 2 days before she died, which I just find quite chilling.

Just to clarify, although it was their renovation project, it was quite clearly her Instagram feed and her comments.

Yes. And through those comments, she could be perceived as a somewhat materialistic person, in my opinion.

But that is neither here nor there, is it?

I've just looked at the instagram (morbid I know!)

Obviously she totally deserved to be killed by her abusive husband because???? Is it the carpet? Is it the choice of boring wall colour?

What exactly about her social media accounts is it that demonstrates that she absolutely got what was coming to her?

I do not believe that anyone has said that "her social media accounts demonstrate that she got what was coming to her". If you do then please point us all to their comments so that we can correct them because that is not what this debate is about.

" it was up to the jury, once presented with all facts and financial figures, to find motive, "

I guess this is what I am struggling with. He murdered his wife. The "motive" behind that murder is irrelevant. He strangled her. That is all any jury needs to know.

Your continued mention of social media accounts, that the dead woman posted the good bits of her life on Facebook or instagram reads as if you are suggesting this is somehow a mitigation to the fact that she was murdered. You have said "he deserves to hang" and then go on to mention that she seemed to enjoy flaunting her lifestyle on social media.

Are you unable to see that this continued fixation on her display of middle classdom is the subtext which is trying to influence the Daily Mail readers to think that she somehow brought this upon herself?

It was a renovation of an ordinary house. Not Chequers or Buckingham Palace. It has no place on this thread about how the media has portrayed a murder.

It was a renovation project that clearly could not be afforded by this couple. This is exactly why the financials played a pivotal role in the trial, and this thread conceived. Or do you deem a family debt of £409,000 ordinary?

@beenandgoneandbackagain

Do you agree with me or not that:

1/ He deserves to hang?
2/ That she seemed to enjoy flaunting her lifestyle on social media?

Was the house in such a dire state of repair that a full renovation project called for?

www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=56346658&sale=89683857&country=england

shkrbby

The state of disrepair or otherwise of the house is not relevant.

She may well have enjoyed flaunting their spending on social media. Not relevant.

I don’t agree that he deserves to hang because I don’t believe capital punishment is ever justified.

It doesn’t matter if she was aware of the spending. It wouldn’t even matter if she actively drove or colluded in it (it doesn’t appear she did, just to clarify.)

NOTHING she did excuses, or mitigates in ANY way the fact her violent husband KILLED her with his bare hands after she challenged him.

Nothing excuses that.

I hate these stories, they are reported the same way as those where men kill their children then themselves - always something SHE must have done.

Why is a women’s spending an excuse for murder? Ever?

What @Hypermice said. The rest is just goady fuckery.

1/ He deserves to hang?

Actually, I am not a fan of the death penalty. I am in favour of more investment in the prison service so that it could do its job properly.

2/ That she seemed to enjoy flaunting her lifestyle on social media?
My views on her use of social media are irrelevant to the story. An abusive man killed a woman. That a tabloid uses her spending habits to add a sub-text that she somehow contributed to her own murder is abhorrent, misogynistic, and sadly, rather expected.

Having said that, I am guessing from your repeated mention of her social media habits/spending, that you have a different opinion? Could you please explain to those of us who are pondering your repeated comments about her spending what relevance they have to either the trial or the fact that she was murdered? What subtext do you think the media and the defence were trying to create by their mentioning of the spending?