Police officer accidentally strangles lover

Oh yes I forgot to include the resetting of the phone... manslaughter :confused:



Perhaps the lawyer went all Johnny Cochran on the jury...



Was 10.5 years the maximum?
 
Complete joke,I'm not sure how people in the judiciary system actually think, because they obviously don't apply common sense to anything.
 
Angilion said:
1) Is it really a good idea to have cases settled by people reading whatever coverage they see on a screen or in a paper and then guessing what happened?
Click to expand...

Ad hominem. I think most of us can read between the lines. This is a debate about a news story, of course none of us can make a juror's decision based upon an article in a red top.
Angilion said:
2) Nobody is disputing that he killed her, so the question of whether that is beyond reasonable doubt is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I was insinuating that he probably murdered her, beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Django x2 said:
Why? He didn't premeditate her murder, it happened during a heated argument, that's manslaughter.
Click to expand...

I have never understood why "happening during an argument" is considered to make it better. Why isn't someone so volatile that they'll kill another person because they lose their temper considered a bigger risk? Surely it's eminently likely that they'll get themselves in that situation again?

I think the case stinks; but in cases like this where everything depends on information unavailable to the court/jury and the only witness the one who committed the killing, I can't see how you would get a beyond-reasonable-doubt verdict for murder.
 
Mr Jack said:
I have never understood why "happening during an argument" is considered to make it better.
Click to expand...

It's not just 'happened during an argument' means you get off murder - there are specific factors ('qualifying triggers' i think they're called) in law that allow murder to be reconsidered as voluntary manslaughter.

He's evidently successfully established enough doubt about the scenario that the jury didn't feel they could dismiss these factors and convict for murder, so his guilty plea for manslaughter stood (and his guilty plea is partly why his sentence is low, as is standard practice)
 
Traffic Patrol Officer - says it all really .

For those of you that don’t know it’s a commonly known in most forces that if you go to traffic you’ve failed at everything else .

I’ve yet to come across one traffic officer with an ounce of compassion or sense of humour . He should have fun in the shower in the nick .
 
Surveyor said:
I didn't realise the criminal standard of proof was common sense. When did it change from beyond reasonable doubt?
Click to expand...
This

We don't know what the standard was laid out by the Judge. Was unanimous the only verdict acceptable or was a majority verdict also allowed? Of that majority verdict what was the ratio allowable 11-1, 10-2 etc. It could have been as simple as one or two people thought there was reasonable doubt and then you can't convict. So now rather than the whole jury "not knowing what they are doing" we have 10-20%. Of course as has already been stated they heard the evidence and we have not. So we are down to people's interpretation of the evidence. Has anyone done anything stupid they regretted when the red mist has descended? Something that you would not do normally if thinking rationally? There is some reasonable doubt.
All we have to do is look at sporting event to see this type of thing happen. I know the circumstances are different but effectively you play something with lots of physical exertion which will spike adrenaline, then a mistake is made and people lash out. We know that sports etc can get people into an agitated state. Does that mean then that everything which happens on a sports field is premeditated as people have put themselves in that position purposefully knowing there could be poor outcomes? A chat become an argument, becomes heated, become more heated.... someone is dead. The worst possible outcome, but does not necessarily mean premeditation. The only person who knows for sure is the person who has committed the crime.

edit:

This is why manslaughter is offered as the burden of proof is lower.

Just by the discussion in this forum we can see that there is not a unanimous verdict without the evidence.
 
Interesting fact, this happened less than 500m from my house and my other half was one of the first to see said man slaughterer leave carpark with blood on him.
 
How judge passed manslaughter sentence on Timothy Brehmer | Daily Echo

FORMER Dorset Police officer Timothy Brehmer was sentenced to 10 years and six months in prison for the manslaughter of lover Claire Parry on October 28.

Brehmer, 41, of Hordle, New Forest, was acquitted for murdering nurse Mrs Parry at the Horns Inn pub car park on May 9 but admitted causing her death.

Following a two-week murder trial, a jury of 11 found him not guilty. Mr Justice Richard Jacobs then sentenced the “womaniser” for manslaughter.

But how did the jury reach their verdict and how did Judge Jacobs decide his sentence?

The prosecution’s case was that Brehmer took Mrs Parry by the neck with such force as to kill her after she sent a text to his wife revealing the affair, which had been going on for 11 years.

The defence’s case was Brehmer accidentally compressed Mrs Parry’s neck in a “kerfuffle” while trying to get her out the car.

For the jury to return a verdict of guilty, they would have to have been absolutely sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that Brehmer intended to kill or cause Mrs Parry serious injury.

If they weren’t sure, they would have to return a verdict of not guilty.

If they were sure, however, they would then have to consider the partial defence of ‘loss of control’.

For loss of control to be considered, there has to have been a qualifying trigger, the text to Martha Brehmer revealing the affair in this case, and someone of the same sex and age as the defendant with a normal degree of tolerance would have reacted in the same way.

It is not known how the jury reached their verdict, but it is up to the judge to decide on what basis to pass sentence, whether it was ‘unlawful manslaughter’, or ‘loss of control’ manslaughter. Judge Jacobs decided on the latter.

Judge Jacobs said: “The only real basis for you considering that you had been seriously wronged by the sending of the text was that, if the affair were to be revealed, you should have been the person to tell your wife; the news should simply not come via a text message.

“I consider that this aspect of the qualifying trigger was only just met, bearing in mind that what your wife was told in the text message was true, you had received fair warning over the previous two days, in calls and text messages, that Claire Parry was going to tell your wife, you had had a full opportunity to tell your wife about the revelation that was coming, but your own cowardice led you not to do so but instead to try to dissuade Claire Parry from carrying through on what she had told you that she would do.”

Judge Jacobs said Brehmer’s actions were of high culpability because the trigger only just met the criteria.

This gave a sentencing range of 10 to 20 years, with a starting point of 14 years.

Aggravating factors considered by Judge Jacobs were the significant mental and physical suffering caused to Mrs Parry who “must have appreciated that her life was being taken from her”.

The second factor was the fact Brehmer blamed Mrs Parry for stabbing him at the scene, a lie he then changed the next day.

Judge Jacobs considered the mitigating factors that Brehmer had no previous convictions and was a “good policeman” who served for a number of years.

He said: “Bearing those aggravating and mitigating factors in mind, I consider that the appropriate sentence in your case, before taking into account your guilty plea, is 12 years six months imprisonment.

“I will reduce that sentence by just over 15 per cent because you did plead guilty, at effectively the first opportunity, albeit that that plea was on a basis (unlawful manslaughter) that I have not accepted.

“That reduces the sentence by 24 months; from 12 years six months to a sentence of 10 years and six months.”
Click to expand...
 
Kenai said:
It's not just 'happened during an argument' means you get off murder - there are specific factors ('qualifying triggers' i think they're called) in law that allow murder to be reconsidered as voluntary manslaughter.
Click to expand...

What are these triggers?
 
This is a clear case of an extra marital affair gone wrong. An original "deal" that this relationship would in no way interfere with their actual marital relationships, I'm surprised it went on for as long as it did. That was until, Claire Parry wanted her relationship with Timothy Brehmer to be something more. She wanted his "perfect life" and it was starting to eat away at her until she gave him an ultimatum. He wanted his cake. She then, according to the accused, antagonised him further by going through is phone and berating him with every happy picture of him that she found. This tragic irony is not lost on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom