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/

So if my husband's mistress calls me to tell me about the affair, he's allowed to stab her but I'm not allowed to stab anyone? Is that right?

How could pushing somebody out of a car involve strangling them.

@Viviennemary

How could pushing somebody out of a car involve strangling them.

I understand that he didn't strangle her - apparently the pathology doesn't bear this out - and the use of strangled is a journalistic invention.

Happy to be corrected however.

It is my understanding that it is very easy to kill someone via strangulation, even if the intent was not to kill them but to, say, stop them from shouting /screaming, to rob them".

When people lose their temper and fly into a violent rage I can imagine how this might feasibly happen.

However, in this case, the killer was a cop who surely would have received training in restraining non-compliant prisoners? Surely he would have received training about not putting pressure on the neck of a human being?

I struggle to understand how the jury could have reached this verdict. I found his account of what happened to be unimpressive and unconvicing in the extreme.

I feel horrified reading the news reports about this and the extended web of innocent people, including children, harmed by his actions.

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.

Oh me too! I sometimes feel I’m the only person in the world to dislike SB. It’s always patronising mansplaining, often without even having all the facts (as was the case here where SB initially didn’t realise the def had raised loss of control defence). Smug as hell and 100% a man imo. But conveniently, SB always declares himself unable to comment on contentious issues such as trans prisoners because SB ‘just doesn’t have the expertise’. Doesn’t stop you in the case of literally every other topic, mate. The fawning drives me nuts.

This guy is a murdering bastard. Juries are ordinary people off the street and they get it wrong constantly. We only pretend they are this great bastion of justice due to tradition. In a group of 12, there will inevitably be dominant personalities and people who just want to go home and don’t give a crap and will go with the majority. Some will be prejudiced. I suspect that the fact that the victim was having an affair probably affected the outcome, plus this slimeball’s charming exterior. After all, women get much more of the blame for an affair than men do.

Also, his car was tiny. How the hell do you fall on someone in a small Citroen? How was she in a push-up position with him piggy-backing on her? If you want her out of the car, you get out of your side and then open her door and pull her out. He was clearly much stronger than her. Poor woman.

I understand that he didn't strangle her - apparently the pathology doesn't bear this out - and the use of strangled is a journalistic invention.

Maybe but he broke her neck in three places. If I wanted to get someone smaller and lighter than me out of the car, I’d get out, stand over them and pull them out by their arms or torso. No need to go anywhere near the neck and most people wouldn’t, even if they were in a violent altercation.
Amazing how so many men just accidentally kill women by placing their hands on a woman and then, whoops!, she’s dead and he has no idea how it happened. Ian Huntley, Vincent Tabak, Grace Millane’s killer and now this creep. Hope he rots.

I read that he’d be considered for parole after two years

Nobody is considered for parole until at least a third of their sentence is served. The judge recommended two thirds, so six years eight months, which I believe is the maximum he could do. It is actually rare for prisoners to serve more than two thirds of a sentence in prison.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-54716338

Judges comments as reported here make it clear the judge believed he murdered her irrespective of the jury decision.

Thank you to that judge. I'm very surprised but happy at the strength of his comments.

It's actually hard to kill someone by strangulation, you have to exert a lot of force for a prolonged period of time. Not relevant I know, but it's not as easy as some would think.

If I wanted to get someone smaller and lighter than me out of the car, I’d get out, stand over them and pull them out by their arms or torso

Exactly. How would piggy-backing on them help in any way whatsoever? It made it sound like he was actually trying to pull her back in the car from behind.

I don’t understand the ‘trigger’ defence. If it was a really, really bad thing, I’d get it, but texting a partner about an affair isn’t a really bad thing. How can that be a defence?

Your own partner’s infidelity is expressly not a trigger event for the loss of control defence. So I don’t understand how someone telling your spouse about your own infidelity can be. Plus this guy had cheated on his wife since they were married. He’d had a 10 year affair with Claire and was known as a womaniser who preyed on vulnerable women he worked with. If your spouse finding out the truth is so awful, maybe don’t cheat so openly and for such a long period of time. Creep.

how many men have been 'accidently' killed by women?

I know some of you don't like Secret Barrister, but this might explain the Judge's comments on loss of control (although I don't think it will give anyone more faith in the law):

twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1321501603254411264

Basically, we don't know whether the jury decided that manslaughter was the appropriate verdict because of loss of control, but if the judge sentences on the basis of loss of control the sentence can be higher.

That might explain the judges rather odd comments about loss of control being justified?

If you read the BBC article I linked, the judges comments essentially say he believes the man is a total liar and murdered her.

'Mr Justice Jacobs told Brehmer he was sentencing him "on the basis you lost your self-control following the sending of the text message to your wife where the affair was revealed, rather than on the basis that you had no intention to kill or cause really serious harm".

"I am sure that you did deliberately take Claire Parry by the neck applying significant force with your forearm or the crook of your elbow for a period of time while she struggled against you, thereby causing...severe neck injuries," the judge added.

"The evidence from the pathologist was that those injuries which she described as 'severe' on a scale of mild, moderate or severe resulted from the application of significant force to the neck for a period of a minimum 10 to 30 seconds and possibly longer.

"She 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."

Brehmer told the trial he had left the car without realising Mrs Parry was "poorly".

However, the judge said as a trained police officer "it must have been obvious" that Mrs Parry was not breathing.

"Yet you did nothing to try to help Claire Parry," Mr Justice Jacobs added. "You did not ask her how she was. That was because you knew how she was.

"You could not possibly have 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."'

Pretty clear to me what the judge thinks happened.

I'm pleased at his comments if not at the verdict.

Well I’m pleased that the judge stuck up for Claire after the spineless jury failed to convict. I think that if we are to continue with jury trials, they need to give clear reasons for their decisions. The system at the moment is too open for abuse. Juries could be tossing a coin for all we know and yet we brag about British justice. Might help address our appalling rape conviction rate too. I remember watching a highly inappropriate reality TV show a long time ago where celebrities acted as jurors and I remember Patsy Palmer or someone on it explaining that loads of women lie about rape to get attention. Lots of people hold very problematic views and we entrust them with a lot as jury members. Why shouldn’t they have to explain themselves?

My DD was there very soon after as the police wanted to see the pubs CCTV. He was a coward who lost control when Mrs Parry contacted his wife. This is not about domestic or sexual abuse. Please don't compare them.

This is not about domestic or sexual abuse. Please don't compare them.

What?

My DD was there very soon after as the police wanted to see the pubs CCTV. He was a coward who lost control when Mrs Parry contacted his wife. This is not about domestic or sexual abuse. Please don't compare them

Really? He appears to be controlling and abusive to me. We don't know what his wife went through behind closed doors but given he is a controlling liar who has a 'temper' I doubt it was free from domestic abuse and violence.

Also abusers are cowards!
The only thing my abuser regretted was being 'found out' outside our marriage, that was when I reached my enough is enough and shared what was going on. What goes on behind closed doors is a secret and he will never forgive me for spilling the beans.
We really need to talk about it more as even some women just don't get it.

@MrsTerryPratchett

So if my husband's mistress calls me to tell me about the affair, he's allowed to stab her but I'm not allowed to stab anyone? Is that right?

Apparently so. It’s sickening. What does it say about our society that anyone thinks fit to put forward that a man whose infidelity is exposed has such a “justifiable sense of being wronged” that killing the person who exposed it doesn’t constitute murder?

And I do think there is structural sexism/misogyny here because this whole “loss of control” defence is so much less likely to apply to women, simply because they so rarely have the strength to kill someone in a fit of rage, however angry they are.

Of course, it might be that the jury actually believed the story about it being part of a fight and all accidental, or at least thought the prosecution hadn’t made a good enough case that it wasn’t, but the judge was having none of it, knew it was deliberate, and knew that a “loss of control” acquittal would allow a longer sentence than an “accidental” acquittal.

Whatever, the decision seems very wrong.

Can anyone tell me why he seemed to have no clothes on in the ambulance? Would he have been forced to remove them as evidence before being arrested?
I am sickened by this verdict, someone's life snuffed out because she had the temerity to tell on him and his punishment 10 years in prison. Disgraceful. He knew what he was doing. He silenced her. That was his intent.

Dark humour if you’re sensitive.

newsthump.com/2020/10/28/careless-woman-accidentally-beaten-to-death-by-unlucky-man/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

They had to specifically remove adultery from the list of triggering thing to make people lose control (or as it was called, ‘provocation’) because so many men were using it to justify killing their wives with the excuse that they had found out they’d cheated (or thought they’d cheated). You’re totally right that it’s skewed towards men who experience a sudden rage and can’t control themselves. I’ve never understood why women are labelled emotional and irrational. Men are the ones who are more likely to get so angry they can’t control their actions. That sort of thing is the height of being emotional.

I really don’t get the above comment about not comparing it to domestic or sexual abuse. And is your DD a police officer who was called to the scene or something? What relevance is it that she was there shortly afterwards? This guy had a reputation for preying on vulnerable women and for having a temper. His wife worked for the same force. I refuse to believe that they had a happy marriage where she was oblivious to his behaviour. And in any event, attacking an strangling your lover is the very definition of domestic abuse so yeah he was a domestic abuser. Oh and people don’t go from absolutely nothing to murdering someone. He will have form - believe me. Plus I can’t understand why the text was so triggering. He had been cheating under his wife’s nose with some of her work colleagues for many years. There will have been other near-misses (if she didn’t already know) and someone as smarmy as him could surely have explained away the text anyway. It’s total bullshit.