Claire Parry’s killer found NOT GUILTY of Murder.

[GroundAlmonds]

Unbelievable.

www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/18825133.dorset-policeman-timothy-brehmer-found-not-guilty-murder/

Sentencing adjourned until 9.30am tmw.

Not another one, not again. How many more of these will we see? Absolute travesty, and heartbreaking for her family - for women and girls.

His defence is on a par with the rape case where the rapist “fell” and his penis “just slipped into“ the victim.

I'm confident I could square off against 7 or 8 angry and porn soaked men in a closed jury room, but could every woman - or every man for that matter? The level of social change required to change outcomes in one of these jury decisions would be close to a race-hate trial in the old south. We're talking ingrained prejudice, entitlement and hate. Including internalised misogyny.

Absolutely this, PicsInRed. Excellent post.

It's baffling, how can anyone possibly admit to strangling but without the intent to kill?

There are other violent actions where it's not quite so clear cut but how can anyone say that they weren't aware that death is the likely outcome of strangulation and they didn't mean to kill?

Another fucking disgusting murderer getting away with it. God I’m so angry. If you put pressure on someone’s neck you should bloody well expect that it might harm or kill them and therefore in my eyes it should be automatically treated as murder/attempt murder. Absolutely disgraceful.

for Claire’s family

I'm confident I could square off against 7 or 8 angry and porn soaked men in a closed jury room, but could every woman - or every man for that matter?

I did and they tried to get me removed from the jury as it was apparently a conflict of interest for me to have experience working with women who had been sexually assaulted . There were three men who were always going to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt in case it "ruined his life".

@TabbyStar

I'm confident I could square off against 7 or 8 angry and porn soaked men in a closed jury room, but could every woman - or every man for that matter?

I did and they tried to get me removed from the jury as it was apparently a conflict of interest for me to have experience working with women who had been sexually assaulted . There were three men who were always going to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt in case it "ruined his life".

Thank you for this post - this demonstrates exactly how and why women aren't getting justice, and cannot get justice under the present model.

Thank you for standing strong against them.

What's also shocking are the comments on the article.
"If only she'd kept her mouth shut, she was determined to have him." What the Hell? Absolute example of victim blaming right there.

@User27aw

Murder doesnt have to be premeditated.

No but there has to be a level of intent to cause serious injury.

@user147425843578

Also, juries don't have to provide their reasoning for their decision. So it could be based on not wanting to convict a police officer, based on liking how he came across in court, based on a misunderstanding of the burden of proof, based on disliking the prosecutor, based on not wanting to be responsible for sending someone to prison...

I wouldn't take it to mean they necessarily believed he accidentally strangled her. They may have formed the view that the prosecution did not meet the legal burden of proof (or may have misunderstood what the reasonable doubt instruction meant") or any of a number of faulty reasons.

I don't know why people think jury trials are a good way of delivering justice in the way people mean here. There is no transparency and no recourse for faulty application of the law because they don't have to publish a judgment like a judge would, who could then be challenged for erring on a point of law.

It's the system and structures that need outrage, attention and change.

Having been on a jury I can absolutely see how this happens. Men on the jury who side with men. Women who are as brainwashed by misogyny as any man. People getting totally confused by the law - which (stating the bloody obvious) is incredibly complex and nuanced. The instructions from a judge can be really difficult to follow - and I say that as someone educated to masters level. And defence lawyers tying people in knots - in our case it was bloody obvious to everyone that an incident had happened as described, but because the date of it couldn’t be proved beyond what the jury saw as reasonable doubt, there was no verdict.

My guess would be ... judges watch porn too. Women like it we don't so it cant be that bad, right?

But this was a jury verdict.

ancientgran

Like the fact he was a police officer? Is there any evidence police officers get off with things or get lighter sentences?

This was only published last week.

“Dozens of Victoria Police officers were charged with family violence offences in the five years to 2019 but only one was found guilty and none had convictions recorded.”

www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-21/dozens-of-victoria-police-officers-charged-with-family-violence/12757988

From what I read, I don’t think they denied intent. I think they relied on the partial defence of loss of control.

Thanks DaneLikeEmmaGoldman, thanks but I'm in England so I was thinking of English Police and courts. I should have said.

So angry about this. I knew he'd get away with it.
I complained to the Metro about their victim-blaming headline about this last week - 'Cop killed lover ‘after she broke affair rules.’

Got a really shitty response back tbh, which contained this chestnut, 'I hope you can see our point of view. Of course, were he to be found guilty, I’m sure he will be condemned strongly by the judge, and we will report that.'

Surely with strangulation the time it takes proves intent. It’s not like a “stab, ohshitwhathaveIdone” moment. It’s prolonged, it requires pressure to be maintained, presumably while a victim is struggling. One angry second doesn’t get it done.

How on Earth anyone can say that that’s anything less than completely deliberate mystifies me.

Hi all, criminal lawyer here. This is a really sad and upsetting verdict.

For a conviction of murder, you must intend to either kill or cause really serious harm to the person. If you do not have that intent, or were reckless as to the injury, you are guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Manslaughter is defined as an unlawful act causing death: So if I punch someone, and they fall to the ground, crack their head open on a paving slab and die, then I am guilty of manslaughter as I have no intention to cause really serious harm.

Although asking for an AG reference of an unduly lenient sentence is an appropriate course of action in many cases, the judge will have to sentence on the jury's finding: i.e that they were not sure of intention to kill or cause GBH, but are sure that the defendant's unlawful act caused death.

So unless the sentence is unusually low for the offence of manslaughter, then an AG ref request will not succeed.

I have no idea what caused the jury to conclude as they did in this case. Under three hours is a very short period of deliberation for murder.

I would also say that it is almost certain that both sides would have got expert pathologist reports on the injuries and possible causation. It would seem they were not conclusive, but I don't know anything about the case, so cannot say for sure.

Finally, whilst judges can be blamed for many things, this is the verdict of a jury.

Desperately sad day for Ms Parry's family. My thoughts are very much with them.

As a society we have been conditioned to accept some people's opinion more easily than others. So a policeman is seen as someone who is more likely to be truthful or less likely to lie.

It was amazing doing jury duty to see how many people would accept the establishment's point without asking for evidence.

I should also say that the Crown cannot appeal the verdict due to the law of double jeapardy. The only way that he can be re-tried is if the Court of Appeal find that there is "new and compelling evidence". The law was changed to allow this after the murder of Julie Hogg. Her murderer was acquitted, then confessed to the murder whilst in prison for another offence.

Awful case. Well spoken, well practiced liar gets off a murder charge.

twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1321156610560057344?s=19

There’s a video showing him being arrested at the scene, a policeman reads his statement back to him and in it he says he can’t remember how he got the knife wounds. Handy that loss of memory stuff.

Anyone know is sentence?

Sentencing was postponed until tomorrow morning @ivftake1

Sentencing is apparently tomorrow morning.

thisoneday - I posted the link to the AG's page on appealing sentencing, in anticipation of a mere slap on the wrist. My money's on him getting the lightest possible sentence allowed because "policeman", "previously of good character", "crime of passion in the moment", "won't someone think of his poor family?"

I hope the judge proves me wrong, but based on some recent shockers, I'm not holding my breath.

I wonder why sentencing was postponed. Apparently he told the passers by who found him that he'd been stabbed. Lies.