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/

@GroundAlmonds

Sentencing was postponed until tomorrow morning *@ivftake1*

Ah ok thanks, I saw it was meant to be today at 14:30 so I was confused

Reason for adjournment for sentence? - Maybe the pre-sentence report needed to be completed and looked at by the defence, in order to prepare for mitigation

I dislike the Secret Barrister's take on these kind of crimes, to be honest. He very patiently explains what the law is, like we are all dummies who don't know that it's up to a jury. But we are complaining that it SHOULD not have been the verdict. How on earth can a defendant who repeatedly lied get away with breaking a woman's neck? His story doesn't make any sense. A 'kerfuffle' accidentally killed her? Secret barrister also doesn't cover the scandal of the statutory loss of control defence being twisted to allow affairs as a trigger for loss of control.

It was her texting the wife that was considered the trigger, not the infidelity involved. He had been enthusiastically partaking of that infidelity for a decade.

I cannot fathom how a jury decides that was a reasonable response. I really despair.

I still cannot believe this verdict, so angry!

@WeeBisom

I dislike the Secret Barrister's take on these kind of crimes, to be honest. He very patiently explains what the law is, like we are all dummies who don't know that it's up to a jury. But we are complaining that it SHOULD not have been the verdict. How on earth can a defendant who repeatedly lied get away with breaking a woman's neck? His story doesn't make any sense. A 'kerfuffle' accidentally killed her? Secret barrister also doesn't cover the scandal of the statutory loss of control defence being twisted to allow affairs as a trigger for loss of control.

But you can't say what it SHOULD have been unless you have heard ALL the evidence...and you haven't. Yes it looks clear cut when the MSM give you the parts that make interesting reading but 12 people heard what had been said and made a decision.

Secret barrister also doesn't cover the scandal of the statutory loss of control defence being twisted to allow affairs as a trigger for loss of control.

But the SB isn't commenting on what the law should be, they are explaining why, given the current law, this verdict might have been reached.

I agree that 'loss of control' doesn't seem a reasonable excuse given what has been reported, but without knowing details its impossible to know whether the judgement was faulty, whether the law doesn't adequately cope with cases like this, or whether there was some other circumstance that hasn't been revealed to the public.

So basically him killing her was 'justified' because she upset him.

I wonder if this defence will cover other murders.
Generally everyone who kills someone is upset with the person they kill.

"But you can't say what it SHOULD have been unless you have heard ALL the evidence...and you haven't."
This would mean we can never have opinions about jury's decisions unless we are privy to all the evidence - which is impossible. Look, the law in this area is not particularly complex. It's just a matter of applying it to the facts. And the key facts are known. One is permitted to be surprised that a jury has found a repeat "convincing" liar, who changed his story, believable.

As for the loss of control thing, I thought the statute excluded ANY reference to infidelity, but it seems it only excludes things said or done which amount to affairs but not disclosure of affairs. That seems regrettable.

If any person in the world is capable of getting a reluctant person in and out of a car without killing them, it's a police officer. Ditto knowing how much force is needed to hurt someone. And the consequences of that. Restraint is something they are TRAINED in. Plus quite a lot of first responder type aid. Medical aid.

Loss of control is utterly dreadful. It amounts to 'yeah but I was really upset guvnor'. People don't kill people because they are happily in control, do they?

The statement by Claire Parry's husband was incredibly dignified. He talks about how, by pleading not guilty, Claire's family were forced to sit through a trial where her faults were focused on, and not the good things about her.

I appreciate that we dont know all.the ins and outs of the trial but it does seem incredible that the jury went for acquittal.

@WeeBisom

"But you can't say what it SHOULD have been unless you have heard ALL the evidence...and you haven't." This would mean we can never have opinions about jury's decisions unless we are privy to all the evidence - which is impossible. Look, the law in this area is not particularly complex. It's just a matter of applying it to the facts. And the key facts are known. One is permitted to be surprised that a jury has found a repeat "convincing" liar, who changed his story, believable.

As for the loss of control thing, I thought the statute excluded ANY reference to infidelity, but it seems it only excludes things said or done which amount to affairs but not disclosure of affairs. That seems regrettable.

Who said they believed him? The court result does not mean they did, I've seen many cases lost even though the defendant was proved to be lying. The prosecution simply could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the persons intent or another key point. As for 'key fact are known' we don't kangaroo courts in this country, you don't run a case on key points you read from.the mainstream media. It is one thing to raise questions but most of the people on this thread have skim read twitter and decided that someone's guilty of Murder.

Sentenced to ten and a half years. That's not a bad sentence - I was fearing worse.

The sentencing remarks will be interesting I think.

I'm so fucking sick of people claiming they've lost control when actually they are exerting it.

@MrsTerryPratchett

If any person in the world is capable of getting a reluctant person in and out of a car without killing them, it's a police officer. Ditto knowing how much force is needed to hurt someone. And the consequences of that. Restraint is something they are TRAINED in. Plus quite a lot of first responder type aid. Medical aid.

Loss of control is utterly dreadful. It amounts to 'yeah but I was really upset guvnor'. People don't kill people because they are happily in control, do they?

This ^ He'd been a traffic officer. He understood how to safely remove someone from a car.

He knew exactly what the results of his actions would be, he was angry with her and wanted to silence her.

Thinking of the Parry family and his poor wife and child.

10 years and 6 months is not nearly long enough for the damage he has done.

Sounds like the judge has got the measure of him.

"She (the pathologist) said it was difficult to envisage a situation where a struggle in the car imparted the necessary degree of force or could explain the extent and severity of the neck injuries".

'You were a trained and experienced police officer and your character witnesses described how you would help others.

'Yet you did nothing to try to help Claire Parry. You did not ask her how she was. That was because you knew how she was.

'You could not possibly thought, as you said in your police interview, that she was simply taking a breath.

'You must have known that her body had gone limp after your assault on her. Before you walked to the car park entrance you must have seen how she was - hanging half out of the car.

'It must have been obvious to you as a trained police officer with extensive experience of casualties in traffic accidents that she was not breathing.

'In evidence you said you did not realise she was poorly. I consider that you appreciated that she was much worse than that.'

So why not more than 10 years?

Surely I’d you disgrace your uniform like this it should be an aggravating factor at sentencing? It feels like the opposite. As though losing his police career is a punishment itself, so they go easier at sentencing.

If not I’d

It's a much better sentence than I'd feared.

Morally speaking nowhere near enough.

As to why the judge found as he did, there may be some clues in here:
www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-is-the-sentence-for-manslaughter-how-many-years-could-you-face-in-prison/

According to yesterday's BBC article, I think Brehmer pled guilty to the manslaughter charge, but not guilty to the murder charge. Thus, it could be that the judge had to take into account that he had admitted the offence he was actually being sentenced for (this usually reduces a tarrif by 1/3, I think).

I despair.

As a follow-up, at the risk of sounding like the dreadful hanging judge at the start of Strong Poison, I think maybe better guidelines are needed for juries as to what is meant by "beyond reasonable doubt."

There are occasions where it seems to be interpreted by juries to mean "beyond any doubt whatsoever, even if one has to invoke sci-fi, fantasy novel scenarios, magic and divine intervention to create this suspension of doubt." For instance, the infamous rape case where the defendant got off by claiming he tripped and fell penis first into his naked, unconscious (because he'd plyed her with drink) victim's vagina. Or in this case, where a pathologist has explained to the jury just how much force is required to cause the injuries to the neck seen in this case, and yet the jury still felt there was reasonable doubt that maybe he'd just grabbed her by the neck by accident, simply intending to move her out of the car.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" shouldn't mean "suspension of all disbelief and critical faculties."

I think the judge has made it fairly clear that he thinks the killer had deliberately killed Claire Parry. I think the sentence is probably the maximum.possible given that he pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

As a former police officer he will not have an easy time in prison.

I think the judge did indeed have the measure of him and didn't for one moment believe his ridiculous defence.

I also think there's a problem in the law as it stands in that the threshold to prove murder rather than manslaughter is quite high. The "loss of control" defence is absurd, and of course favours men who kill women, because men are so much stronger than women that it is very easy to overpower and kill a woman in a fit of anger.